RE: License Stuff

[Reinhard Müller <reinhard mueller bitsmart com>]

Just my two cents on this:

I really don't like LGPL and would personally prefer GPL, but when we want
to make libgda the "de-facto" standard for database access under GNU/Linux
systems, I think we _must_ make the library LGPL.
Of course I agree that the providers should be GPL, as well as the tools and
testing programs.

And, Rodrigo, you are right when you say that those copyright issues should
be cleaned up.
* The AUTHORS file should mention which parts of the project were done by
whom; the primary purpose of AUTHORS is not to give credits to people, but
to state who holds copyright on which part.
* Both COPYING and COPYING.LIB must be included in case we have both
GPL and LGPL parts.
* The README file must clearly state which parts are GPL and which LGPL.
* Also all program sources must have a valid copyright statement and the
correct (LGPL vs. GPL) licence comment.
The "Information for Maintainers of GNU Software" is a good source of
information about such things.

Thanks,
Reinhard

-----Original Message-----
From:	rodrigo linuxave net [SMTP:rodrigo linuxave net]
Sent:	Friday, October 20, 2000 9:23 AM
To:	bob thestuff net
Cc:	Cleber Rodrigues Rosa Junior; GDA Mailing List
Subject:	Re: License Stuff

bob thestuff net wrote:

> Could libgda be relicensed lgpl like most of the rest of gnome? the
> backends can stay gpl, but if libgda is lgpled, problems like that should
> be resolved.
>

this discussion was left over some time ago without a decission. So I think
now it's time to get to an agreement.

My point of view is that libraries should be licensed LGPL. Although I also
see benefits in having them GPL, but I see it's the best choice to have it
LGPL.

So, any comments? or even better, make your vote, and we'll go for what the
majority votes.


_______________________________________________
gnome-db-list mailing list
gnome-db-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list