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

[Arnout E. <no...@bz...>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, 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'd 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!)
> > 
> > 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

I don't think this is accurate.

The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions 
of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and 
wordings of the license text.

What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL 
verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK.

> how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that 
> contradict what you just said?

It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's
under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'.

To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to 
dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and
the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files.


Regards,

Arnout