Indeed, 2a and 2e are in the LGPL, but that doesn't make them acceptible in themselves. LGPL section 3 allows distribution under the GPL, and even says "This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is not a library."
If you include such a section, I withdraw any objection. On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote: > For your information, 2a and 2e come directly from the LGPL (2a and 2d in > it, work for word). > 2d is a requirement - the original though was to not accept patch > submission without a signed document giving co-ownership, but that might > eventually mean keeping track of many individuals and documents. > We require keeping ownership of all the code, as we have to be able to > sell commercial licenses. This does mean that we'll sell other people's > work (with their implicit permission), but that's how we're funding a > large part of the research we do. Without funding, no more research, no > more software. I understand the motivation for 2d, but I do not believe it is compatible with an open-source license. I should not have to give you the right to sell my work as a condition of modifying the software. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
