Re: [sigc] License (again)

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 14:43 +0100, Aristid Breitkreuz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am a developer of a framework / library in C++ and we use sigc++ 2.0.
> Because of problems with the LGPL and C++ we switched to a MPL / GPL /
> LGPL triple license (just like Mozilla by the way). Now our problem is
> that by using a LGPL library and C++ we fear that our triple license is
> useless and any user has to agree to the LGPL requirements which are not
> reasonable for C++. We do expose sigc++ in our API.
> 
> Now I ask: is there anything you can do? Especially the "official
> developers" of sigc++? Or should we switch to another library - which is
> possible but sigc++ has better performance than say Boost.Signals.

I don't consider this particularly urgent because the intent is made
quite clear on the website. 

However, I'm likely to add a formal "exception" making it clear that the
10-line limit mentioned in the LGPL doesn't apply, so that people don't
need to worry about code being inline just because it (must) be used via
a template. This seems like the simplest thing to do.

Suggestions for such an exception sentence are welcome.

Of course, we'll have to get permission from all the contributors. But
that's probably possible.
 
-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com