Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[David Bovill]

Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Monte Goulding wrote:

>>I don't think LGPL is really inteded for this kind of thing. It's more for
>>libraries that can be included in commercial apps without breaking the
>>license or making the commercial app open source.

The difference is that with LGPL you have no problem distributing the 
open source aspects of the code along side ('liniked') closed components 
- in this case the closed components are the engine and RunRevs IDE.

You are right that the language of the licence uses the term 'library' 
that is linked to rather than engine - but this AFAIK comes to the same 
thing (they are thinking of C / C++) but any closed source block of code 
that the open source code 'links to' is covered..

>>
>>Personally I'd suggest Scott and RunRev choose a licensing scheme that
>>allows them to incorporate anything in MC into Rev. They may aswell get
>>something out of their generosity.
> 

Yes. If you get real sophisticated on this issue they should look at 
duel licencing and or you can finesse the GPL using a clause like:

     In addition, as a special exception, <name of copyright
     holder> gives permission to link the code of this program with
     the FOO library (or with modified versions of FOO that use the
     same license as FOO), and distribute linked combinations including
     the two.  You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
     respects for all of the code used other than FOO.  If you modify
     this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
     file, but you are not obligated to do so.  If you do not wish to
     do so, delete this exception statement from your version.

Where FOO would be RunRev engine and IDE - easier to use LGPL though. 
This sort of thing should be done with help from FSF people. The simple 
story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source 
code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.

There is a reason to get a GPL licence if you can - as LGPL si not so 
appealing to the open source folk out there - so if Scott has sought 
legal advice on this and GPL is OK for the MC IDE (to be distributed 
with the RunRev engine) and any code libraries (such as libUrl) - then 
great!

The work i put in on this front came back with a big fat no - re-reading 
the licences and documents again - just confirmed this. GPL will not 
allow the MC IDE to be distributed with the RunRev engine (or any other 
closed source code such as an external). LGPL will.

LGPL also allows you to move to GPL providing certain conditions are met 
- you can't go the other way (ie towards decreasing freedom). So my 
recommendation is start LGPL and move to GPL later as and when required 
/ possible.