Re: [q-lang-users] License of Q programs

[Tim H. <q...@st...>]

Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> writes:

> > I wanted to ask if this is indeed the intended behaviour.
> 
> Not really. I think that it shouldn't be too difficult to freely use Q in
> other open source projects (i.e., projects under some OSI-approved
> license, is that the case with Erlang?). But IANAL so any advice is
> appreciated. What I do know is that it's hard to augment the GPL with
> special clauses without rendering the whole license invalid. So what do
> other, similar projects do to handle this situation?

How about "binaries under GPL, libraries under LGPL" (or specifically
libq)?

Or a special linking exemption clause might be appropriate (say, if there's
not complete logical separation in the sources for Q between what goes into
bin/q and what goes into lib/libq.so). (ISTR gcc does this.)

Perhaps it would be worth being sure that people's own code written *in* Q
is not a derivative work *of* Q, as well?

~Tim
-- 
<http://spodzone.org.uk/>