Re: Gnome Pilot license

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

gnome-libs is LGPL'd, so this should not be a problem.  As for
gnome-pilot, why not keep the GPL licence, but add some text something
like:
  This program is licenced under the GPL, with the exception that plug-ins
  covered by the MPL may be linked with the program at run time.

James.

--
Email: james@daa.com.au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/


On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Eskil Heyn Olsen wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, JP Rosevear wrote:
> 
> > > gnome-pilot code. In general, no conduits except for GPL'ed may link with
> > > gnome-pilot, that sort of sucks.
> > Have the MALsync people been asked if they will GPL or LGPL their code
> > yet?
> 
> I notified them of this some months ago, when they first approached me
> reg. a gnome-pilot conduit. I got no reply then. I am now again trying to
> get a hold of them.
> 
> But someday it might be something other then 
> 
> Btw, is this moot, since gnome-libs is GPL'ed, having a xPL on gnome-pilot
> would be "illegal", or is GPL/LGPL compatible (can they be ? Won't that
> let people link non-GPL code with GPL'ed code via a LGPL layer ?)
> 
> license issues suck.
> 
> /dev/eskil
> ---
> 
>