Re: [gdome]LGPL?
- From: Ian Main <imain netidea com>
- To: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- Cc: Anders Carlsson <andersca gnu org>, Paolo Casarini <casarini CS UniBO IT>, Murray Cumming <murrayc usa net>, gdome gnome org
- Subject: Re: [gdome]LGPL?
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:59:51 -0700
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 06:01:21AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 06:21:56PM -0700, Ian Main wrote:
> > Yeah, no problem at all. I've even been releasing things under the X/MIT license
> > lately as it's even less restrictive than LGPL.. so I'm all for it.
>
> Actually both libxml and libxslt are realeased under 2 licences (one or
> the other):
> - LGPL
> - MIT like (W3C or an adapatation)
> as some people expressed concerns about the LGPL,
Cool. I certainly think that for something like the w3c where you are trying to
make standardized implementations, a license that allows it to be used in more
software (even commercial) is a good thing.
Just look at what the BSD license did for the TCP/IP stack.
Ian
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]