Re: [sdcc-devel] [Sdcc-user] [gnupic] GPLed PIC USB package using SDCC, from Nuts & Volts

[Raphael N. <rn...@we...>]

Hi all,

[[---problems with LGPL snipped---]]

> My opinion is that this requirements are too strict to be practically usable.
Agreed.

> The classpath exception doesn't change the things much IMHO.
> I'm more favorable to the BSD license, see http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php.

Well, even BSD includes a clause, forcing the binary to output the
license:
"""
Redistributions in binary form *must reproduce* the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
"""

This seems to be pretty useless for binary library code, due to lack of
some kind of main program. On the other hand, wiping this phrase out
will render the first paragraph useless:

"""
Redistribution and use in source *and binary* forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
"""

Additionally, <ORGANIZATION> (see link above) should probably be
replaced with <OWNER> (which in turn will become <AUTHOR>)...

Still, I agree that a BSD license is probably closest to what I
(personally) would like for the libraries: Do not restrict their use in
compiled form, keep the author's credits and disclaim all warranties
whatsoever.

Two question remain: Does this reflect general opinion? And finally:
Which license fulfils this?

Regards,
Raphael