Re: Proposed license policy

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

Ettore Perazzoli <ettore helixcode com> writes:

> On 04 Dec 2000 01:07:29 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > * All libraries that become part of the GNOME development platform
> >   must have a license that allows for use by both GPL code and
> >   proprietary code. Acceptable licenses include LGPL, X-style license
> >   with no advertising clause, and dual MPL/GPL. LGPL is strongly
> >   preferred.
> 
> Uhm, I don't think this is right.  It should definitely be possible to
> have libraries that are GPL.

We can have libraries that are GPL.

I agree with Maciej that libraries that are part of the official GNOME
development platform should not be GPL.

I don't think we want to say either:

 a) You can't do proprietary development with GNOME

 b) You can do proprietary development with GNOME, but then
    you have to go buy a commercial license from company X.


a) puts the GNOME platform at a huge disadvantage, and unfortunately
some software simply can't or won't be done as free software.

b) puts the GNOME platform under the control of someone other than the
GNOME foundation, and also puts us at a significant disadvantage
compared to the Microsoft platform.

It also raises the spectacle of having to buy commercial licenses from
company X, Y, and Z. And then the GNOME foundation would start selling
bundled packages with these licenses, and then we'd change our name to
the Open Group...

The GNOME development platform will be a set of libraries that we
encourage external developers to use. It should be supported, stable,
complete, and useable by all. The success of GNOME depends on its wide
adoption, and we shouldn't throw roadblocks in the way of that. 
We have plenty of other means to encourage truly free software.

Regards,
                                        Owen

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