Re: [DotGNU]Licensing of dependencies

[David Sugar]

I think LGPL is a logical and reasonable choice for many libraries.  In 
the case of Andromeda it is tricky, in that it can act both like a 
"library" as a plugin container, and as an application.  However, I 
believe Andromeda itself is under the GPL, not LGPL.   Perhaps 
Andromeda, in it's dual role, and for how we wish to promote it's use, 
should also be under the LGPL?

John wrote:

> Norbert Bollow wrote:
>
> > Actually, as a matter of policy, it should depend only on free
> > software _with_GPL-compatible_licensing_.  (I'm not sure if
> > perhaps an exception could be made for LGPL, but anything else
> > which is not GPL-compatible is definately not acceptable...
>
> We'd *best* make an exception for the LGPL, because unless I miss my
> guess we already have software dependent upon it! The SEE already has a
> dependency on CommonCPP, which in turn relies on libxml2, both of which
> are LGPL. FrePort also relies CCPP, and on libmcrypt, and libSQL++, all
> three of which are LGPL. Additionally, to build support into
> applications for the SEE/DEE we'll need to create a barrier around our
> code to encourage propietary and otherly-licensed code to link with the
> SEE/DEE without affecting their license. This is necessary to spread the
> *use* of DotGNU, and believe in this game: he with the most users, wins.
>
> In the end we want to win, don't we? Unless one wins a revolution,
> freedom is not spread.
>
> John Le'Brecage
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers