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

[John C. <co...@cc...>]

Albert Graef scripsit:

> 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. 

There really aren't any open-source licenses of the type you are
discussing (i.e. that allow the code to be used in open-source but not
proprietary projects).

If you want to make Q embeddable in non-GPL programs, I recommend that
you switch the license from GPL to LGPL.  It may still wind up being used
in some proprietary programs, but not many -- the LGPL conditions are
onerous enough to make that unlikely.  Specifically, they would have
to ship the Q parts as a separate .so or .dll in order to make them
field-upgradeable to a new compatible version of Q.

> What I do know is that it's hard to augment the GPL with
> special clauses without rendering the whole license invalid. 

Actually it isn't.  The FSF does it routinely.  They use three licenses
for library code:

1) The GPL alone,

2) The LGPL,

3) The GPL plus an exception saying you can use this code in any derived
   work, proprietary or not.

Cases #2 and #3 are used when the FSF decides it is in its best interest
to get the software widely used rather than trying to keep it as a
special facility available only to GPL-licensed programs.  Thus glibc
is LGPL, because there are plenty of other C libraries and there is no
special advantage from it; and Guile (the FSF's pseudo-Scheme scripting
language) is GPL+exception, because the FSF wants to actively encourage
its incorporation into proprietary programs.

-- 
Unless it was by accident that I had            John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized.           co...@cc...
        --Quentin Crisp                         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan