Fwd: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[Ian Gordon]

Note: A resend of a post that never seemed to make it through...

... notes for the discussion archives and for those interested in 
licensing...

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ian Gordon <ian at 1492.ca>
> Date: Tue Sep 9, 2003  9:23:53  PM Canada/Eastern
> To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
>
> Hi Richard, David, All,
>
> I've been following the open source MC IDE discussion and commend the 
> initiative being taken and everyones efforts to move the project 
> forward.
>
> The discussion brought back some memories of a time when I was 
> involved in a similar effort, back in 2000 (Advanced Authoring Format 
> (aafassociation.org)). We, the AAF association membership, were at a 
> similar point in time as the MC community is, planning the move of 
> (AAF) technology from a closed development environment to an open 
> source one (SourceForge). I recalled an open source presentation I 
> made at the time and thought it may be pertinent to the current 
> discussion.
>
> I just checked and it is available on-line at the AAF Association web 
> site:
>
> http://aafassociation.org/devcon00/index.html
>
> The AAF SDK was eventually moved over to SourceForge with an all new 
> open source license that Avid drafted up, AAF Public Source license  I 
> believe?
>
> The AAF Sourceforege home page is located here.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/aaf/
>
> All just an fyi
>
> Regards
>
> Ian
>
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 04:49  PM, 
> metacard-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:
>
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:09:48 +0100
>> From: David Bovill <david at anon.nu>
>> To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
>> Subject: Re: Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)
>> Reply-To: metacard at lists.runrev.com
>>
>> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>>
>>>> Has anyone checked:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
>>>
>>>
>>> I read it.  It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate 
>>> to
>>> libraries.
>>>
>>> What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE?
>>>
>>
>> GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue
>> here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source
>> software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments 
>> do
>> not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine.
>>
>> As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the
>> artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense.
>>
>> The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code
>> with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading
>> this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the
>> license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise
>> distibuting the code with any applications you create).
>>
>> That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE 
>> and
>> aany open source libraries that are released.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3253 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.runrev.com/pipermail/metacard/attachments/20030910/588fc2b0/attachment.bin