From: Eric F. <ef...@ha...> - 2005-10-21 18:42:32
|
Chris and others, Chris Barker wrote: > Jeff Whitaker wrote: > >> Andrea: There are lots of things that would work well - but the >> licensing is a problem. GTS is GPL, we need something with a less >> restrictive license (more like Python's). > > > No, it's LGPL, which is much better, but maybe still not OK for mpl. I > guess the problem is that mpl is kind of a library of libraries, rather > than an application, so it would be awkward to have mixed licenses in it. > I don't understand this. Why can't the mpl license simply say that it applies to all components that do not cite other licenses, and then leave the reference to the original license in any code such as GTS which has another license? This is not a plea for or against GTS or any other particular package, but rather an expression of puzzlement and frustration that we seem to be finding free software licenses limiting instead of liberating. Eric |