On Mar 10 2013 7:31 PM, John Kasunich wrote: > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013, at 09:25 PM, EBo wrote: >> Frankly, I think halscope should either be changed back to to LGPL >> or >> simply pulled. >> >> my 2c >> >> EBo -- > > Huh? > > Halscope is a stand-alone application. How does LGPL make sense > for it?
For starters, the way that it was just described in the email that prompted my response made it sound like libhal depends on halscope code -- which would force all of libhal to become GPLv2. From what you say, this is clearly not the case. There are simple ways to keep such UI's separate from linkable libraries, and it might already be this way, and it might not. If it is not, then seperating the GLP UI's from the library source is likely all that is needed, and a trivial fix. THat is what I was talking about. as to your question how would it make sense for such a tool to be LGPL -- only if I dreamed up a way to us halscope to create output images that I then used to embed by linking it like a library. Think a web based interface/tool as a plugable module. I have seen licensing difference cause problems in plugable modules before. That is all I am saying. If there is a licensing problem, fix it. If the two things are co-mingled, then unmingle them... EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report. http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
