> NAnt may be bound to the gpl because of things like the sharpcvslib. Sharpcvslib actually in effect has a license similar to lgpl. The actual license agreement states that it is gpl however the exclusions applied seem to indicate external applications can link to the library without requiring they gpl their product.
All the same I will look into this more on my end and see if I am missing some of the finer points. > It is definately my preference to use BSD or Apache licenses. I also prefer an apache style license. Cheers, Clayton -----Original Message----- From: Philip Nelson Sent: Wed 10/8/2003 10:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [nant-dev] NAnt and Ant (was: Ready to tackle next release) > Well, to be honest : I don't have a clue ... That's perhaps why we're still > stuck with the GPL license :-) I am pretty sure the copyright holder can do whatever they want, so long as they aren't bound to the gpl by other source code or libraries in the application. NAnt may be bound to the gpl because of things like the sharpcvslib. There's also the issue of source code that may have been copied. Does anybody know where all the source comes from? > > I did have a quick look at the licensing stuff, and to me it seems like a > BSD-style license is the most open license ... I would summarize it as "do want you want with this code, and you can't sue me" with an unwritten correlary of "I don't want your crummy enhancements to my code". It is definately my preference to use BSD or Apache licenses. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
<<winmail.dat>>
