Note: A resend of a post that never seemed to make it through...
... notes for the discussion archives and for those interested in licensing...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ian Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue Sep 9, 2003 9:23:53 PM Canada/Eastern
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Hi Richard, David, All,
I've been following the open source MC IDE discussion and commend the initiative being taken and everyones efforts to move the project forward.
The discussion brought back some memories of a time when I was involved in a similar effort, back in 2000 (Advanced Authoring Format (aafassociation.org)). We, the AAF association membership, were at a similar point in time as the MC community is, planning the move of (AAF) technology from a closed development environment to an open source one (SourceForge). I recalled an open source presentation I made at the time and thought it may be pertinent to the current discussion.
I just checked and it is available on-line at the AAF Association web site:
http://aafassociation.org/devcon00/index.html
The AAF SDK was eventually moved over to SourceForge with an all new open source license that Avid drafted up, AAF Public Source license I believe?
The AAF Sourceforege home page is located here.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/aaf/
All just an fyi
Regards
Ian
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:09:48 +0100
From: David Bovill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Gaskin wrote:
Has anyone checked:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
I read it. It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to
libraries.
What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE?
GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue
here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source
software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments do
not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine.
As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the
artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense.
The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code
with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading
this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the
license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise
distibuting the code with any applications you create).
That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE and
aany open source libraries that are released.
