Re: [Notion-devel] Is any of the notion@sf.net admins around?

[Olof J. <ol...@et...>]

On 2010-08-20 07:38, M Rawash wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote:
> > > I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last
> > > option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license
> > > file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's
> > > made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to
> > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing
> > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later...
> > 
> > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even
> > though you might not like it.
> 
> I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever
> license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the
> LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

That is about GPL, not LGPL, I'm not sure, but I don't think they are
as strict about the latter. (Don't take my word for it though.)

> > What you propose however sounds like it
> > could be, but on the other hand it was probably just bad wording...
> 
> how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that
> contradict what you just said?

That's the point you were being vague about... I understood your
previous mail as "let's just refer to the LICENSE.notion file if
anybody asks what license Notion has", and not "let's license *our* 
code under vanilla LGPL". Thanks for clearing that up. This would be a
symbolic gesture, as most code is still Tuomo's.

-- 
Olof Johansson
    irc: zibri on Freenode/OFTC
    jabber: ol...@et...