Le 17 sept. 07 à 22:10, David Chisnall a écrit : > On 17 Sep 2007, at 20:51, Yen-Ju Chen wrote: > >> SystemConfig (Quentin and Guenther) is under LGPL2. >> I understand everyone has his opinions on the license. >> I *personally* think the easiest solution is to turn >> SystemConfig into BSD. >> Comments ? > > You can put BSDL code in an LGPL project, so it's not a huge > problem. I'd prefer BSDL, but I don't have any strong objections > to LGPL (is it v2, or v2-or-later?). > > If Quentin and Guenther are happy with relicensing SystemConfig, > then that's great. If not, then can we keep the BSDL code in a > subframework, so that it's clear to people which bits are LGPL and > which are BSDL?
I'm happy with relicensing SystemConfig under BSD. If the framework remains under LGPL2 for now, I think it's probably simpler to add a new file (or a note in COPYING) summarizing the license of each framework file rather than creating subprojects or subframeworks for BSD vs LGPL2. Well, this is valid only if a subframework isn't needed… My reasoning is based on the following understanding: you can directly integrate BSD-licensed files into an LGPL2 library because the COPYING file "transparently" relicenses all aggregated files not already under LGPL2. Can someone confirm or deny it? The benefit of this approach to me was you are still free to extract aggregated code under its original license at later point. Cheers, Quentin. _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
