On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:07:58AM -0600, Matthew Vanecek was heard to remark: > What's the official Gnucash policy re GPL vs LGPL? Some of the > libraries could conceivably be used by other systems (e.g., the engine, > or the back ends). I would prefer to use LGPL for code/libraries I > write, but I'd rather be in line with the official Gnucash party line.
My original intent was to split out the engine & backends, and lgpl them. However, this never happened; and in the interveneing time, many others have contributed. It is my understanding that to change the license at this point would require unanimous agreement between all past contributors to these components. The point of lgpl was to be able to encourage other apps to make use of the engine, and thereby hopefully increase the size of the developer's pool. However, the engine is still not a separataly installable library, and there are no other apps that use it, and so this idea remains unrealized ... and the lgpl discussion hypothetical. I have nothing against having new code for libraries go in under the lgpl; I don't beleive this would cause any compatiblity problems. Changing the license of any existing code should not be undertaken, at least not without, umm some delicacy. --linas -- pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933
msg01432/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
