On 9/27/07, Andrew Cowie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:03 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > > I wouldn't re-license it > > [there is tons of both context and history here, which the rest of this > thread covers. On the topic of licencing, however:] > > I must admit that as an advocate of software freedom and as someone who > works for a firm that releases its work under the GPL, I am not adverse > to the idea of a GNOME library being licenced under the GPL only. > > I realize full well that there is a certain fraction of the wider > universe of people who use the GNOME platform who are using it under the > pragmatic terms of the LGPL to write their proprietary software. Some of > those companies contribute to our community their IP and their > employees' time, and that's fantastic. > > I hugely respect, however, the expression that has been made by people > who wrote software under the GPL that they wish it to remain so > licenced. That's their call, and it is effectively final.
It is of course their call. And likewise it is the GNOME community's call not to accept libraries licensed as such. We have a very longstanding and very deliberate policy to license our libraries LGPL, and it has served us well. This is not the time to change it, *especially* since we want these libraries to be deeply embedded into all of GNOME, not just some applications. Luis _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
