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

[M R. <mr...@gm...>]

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 13:19 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote:
> 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.)

LGPL is indeed less strict than the GPL, but only in practice (for
example, you can convert LGPLed code to GPL, but not the other way
around), LGPL is essentially GPL for libraries, they are both
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, and that's why they are not
to be modified under any circumstances, unless you have a special
permission from the copyright holder (the FSF). 

> 
> > > 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".

maybe i should have been more clear, the point of 'reference' here was
meant to be the copyright notice at the top of source files (that *we*
modified or created), i'm not suggesting that we lie about our license.
notion was going to be a multi-licensed work anyway, since we were
planning to include various libraries and user-contributed mods to the
core distribution. 

> Thanks for clearing that up. This would be a
> symbolic gesture, as most code is still Tuomo's.

indeed, that's why i said "we will at least _look like_ we're trying to
make it free", i didn't suggest it will actually be free, everybody
seems to have already made peace with that.

regards,
M Rawash