[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-help-public] License change
From: |
Sylvain Beucler |
Subject: |
Re: [Savannah-help-public] License change |
Date: |
Sun, 6 Dec 2009 22:29:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
Hi,
I see that you thought about it - I don't have a point on this
decision.
I updated your project license.
--
Sylvain
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 04:44:50PM +0100, Alexandre Becoulet wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 05:22:33AM +0100, Alexandre Becoulet wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > > I would like to switch the qtlua project license to LGPLv3 to stick to Qt
> > > and QtScript and license change. Thanks.
>
> > Do you know that you do not have to change your license?
> >
> > (Incidentally Qt did not switch to LGPLv3, but added LGPL v=2.1 in
> > addition to GPLv3)
>
> Yes, I have read the http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html article
> and
> really thought about it. It is not an easy to take decision. What's me make
> belive LGPL may be suited for my project is this part of the article:
>
> "The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available
> for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case,
> the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is
> better to use the Lesser GPL for that library."
>
> The QtScript module is very close to QtLua and is now embedded as a core part
> of Qt. It was not the case when I started to develop QtLua back in 2006. Even
> if QtScript is internally produced by Nokia, it is not proprietary software
> though. But QtScript is LGPL, making use of GPL of less interest to stand
> against proprietary software is that particular Qt/scripting related software
> area. That's why I doubt using GPL here still give any advantage to free
> software or to the project.