Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm not sure any other license (I don't know for sure, this is just
my understanding) has the stipulation that the source must *always*
be distributed with anything derived from it.
George Makrydakis wrote:
I guess you are right, but in anycase my intention is one: always have
the source code available and readily modifiable by the end user. I have
no problems with GPL, BSD, CDDL, WYSIWIG and related acronyms.
I have decided to release the upcoming work on the C++ mini parser under a BSD style license. BSD software can work with GPL software, while GPL software locks
all dependencies upon it under GPL, making it impossible to work tightly with available BSD solutions. I always prefer a GPL license for scripting / standalone
projects, but once you start working with libraries and cross - project dependencies, a more liberal license without the GPL viral effect makes development
easier and a less preoccupying process. Consider all posts before and after this containing any code segment by yours truly under a BSD style license (License
was _pending_ anyway throughout the C++ code segments posted by yours truly, and for the code segments posted I have been the sole contributor yet, so I can
relicense them even if by _mistake_ / _confusion_ / unformed _intent_ or whatsoever there was a GPL template embedded, see the Nessus case). An aLFS tool based
on this parser, even if released as GPL, it will simply not collide with the original intent of the mini - "parser". Being as reusable as ever and always open
while being the smallest one around.
This has been a choice made after a lot of thought, giving the end user more
freedom to incorporate personal work everywhere if so he / she wishes.
Work is in progress on the code basis, things are looking extremely good (and
fast, faster!).
Thank you all,
George Makrydakis
gmak
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
