On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:59:12 +0200 Thomas Martitz <thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
> Am 16.07.2012 16:58, schrieb Thomas Martitz: > > Am 16.07.2012 16:41, schrieb Hong Xu: > >> On 2012/7/15 20:28, Frank Lanitz wrote: > >>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:32 +1000 > >>> Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what > >>>> library. It would of course have to have a suitable license to > >>>> allow it to be included. > >>> > >>> Yes. I missed that too. Most plugins are GPL2+ so it needs to be > >>> also GPL2+... BSD should also be fine in most cases. But LGPL > >>> could be problematic. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> I prefer Simplified BSD License for this plugin. What do you mean > >> it should be fine for "most" cases? Could you explain more? > > > > The 2-clause BSD is always fun. As is LGPLv2+. > > s/fun/fine/ :) Rethinking about ..... well, you might are correct. In terms of distribution as we most likely will do, LPGL should also be fine. Sorry - my fault. In terms of BSD I'm thinking about some special parts e.g. calling author's names inside credits I saw in past. But should not be apply able on our case.... Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
pgpXZbmoQPcMW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel