Re: Questions

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:35:01AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >    - should the GNOME project requires that Bonobo components be released
> >      under the LGPL to be part of the platform (I tend to think so)
> 
> Base ones should probably be LGPL or MPL IMHO (or X licensed) so that an app
> can always get some functionality

  yes, "under the LGPL" was stricter than what I intended

> >    - how do we deal with licence compatibility between the applications
> >      and the Bonobo components.
> 
> Add license tags.

  Doesn't this requires an API change ;-) ?

> > that component for use in this application a Licence infrigement ? If yes
> > how would the user know ? And how should this issue be handled in practice
> > without making this a nightmare for the users ?
> 
> When a user tries to embed a component embed one that is ok on the license
> tag rules. So a GPL app would get the GPL supercool one (if that existed)
> and the rest of the apps get the first compatible fallback

  This also mean that the application would have to export its
licence at some API level. This sounds like the recipe used for kernel
module, how transposable is this ? What's the current state of license tags
in kernel modules ? I mean how usable is this, how well does it deals
with the large variety of licence available (I remember seeing a 200+
licences list on freshmeat at some point).

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard redhat com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/