Re: The license question

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>]

Ok, I'm definitely far behind in replying to the recent
discussion, but what I've thinking about after Roozbeh's summary
of what we need is that it may make a lot of sense to borrow code
from Perl.  I've not looked at it in depth yet.  But regardless
of that, one thing is true and that's whatever we choose has got
to be GPL compatible.  From the other side, Yes, most probably it
would be at least as loose as LGPL.  Seems like licensing is the
hardest problem we have to tackle :(

behdad


On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Peter Nugent wrote:

> Hi Behdad,
> ok , so does this mean LGPL is the preferred or most likely choice or is
> still up for discussion ?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Behdad Esfahbod ha scritto:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Peter Nugent wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Roozbeh,
> >>yes LGPL is fine with us although we have a preference for CDDL
> >>(OpenSolaris and other Sun tools are released under this).
> >>Would it be possible to do this under CDDL ?
> >
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Guess no.  We're too restricted by other conditions.  Most
> > important one is that as it's becoming more and more clear,
> > there's a lot that needs to be done to be able to use CLDR data,
> > so we are definitely going to borrow data from other projects.
> > So essentially it's not quite like we choose the license...
> >
> > behdad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>thx
> >>Peter
> >>
> >>
> >>Roozbeh Pournader ha scritto:
> >>
> >>>>From what Keith Packard told me on the IRC, it seems that the license
> >>>question is a very important one.
> >>>
> >>>We will limit our users if we do it in LGPL, the most important one
> >>>being Qt. They don't do dependencies on LGPL libraries, it seems.
> >>>
> >>>The only choice would be a BSD- or MIT-like license, if we are thinking
> >>>of future expansion, which would require us to code lots of stuff from
> >>>scratch.
> >>>
> >>>I would say I would go for the LGPL, to be able to use already existing
> >>>code, specially since we may not be able to win the Qt guys anyway,
> >>>since they already have a locale system in place. Doing it in LGPL would
> >>>make it somehow a refactoring project, while doing it in BSD/MIT would
> >>>be a huge rewriting of everything from scratch.
> >>>
> >>>Question from Sun guys: You don't have objections with the license, do
> >>>you?
> >>>
> >>>Roozbeh
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>locale-list mailing list
> >>locale-list gnome org
> >>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/locale-list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --behdad
> > http://behdad.org/
>
>

--behdad
http://behdad.org/