Make it dual license perhaps?
On May 18, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Angus Salkeld wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 08:41:18AM +0200, Fabien Thomas wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> As you might know we are pulling some parts of corosync out
>> into a separate library (
libqb.org) so the other cluster applications
>> can use them (and anyone else).
>>
>> If possible I would like to make this library LGPL
>> (it is currently a modified BSD license).
>>
> Can we known the reason ?
> BSD licence is good for that except if you want to limit the reuse in commercial
application.
> For example no static linking of the lib will be authorized.
Hi
To make it more palatable to other GPL projects. I think
most people are comfortable with using a LGPL license
(glibc & glib) whether they are writing propietry code
or opensource code. I come from an embedded (telco) background
and there was never a problem with using LGPL libraries.
The initial projects that this library is intended for are all
GPL projects (except corosync/openais). And from speaking
to Steve I don't beleive he has a problem with libqb been LGPL.
I can see why corosync it's self is not GPL as it has a plugin
architecture and we encourage people to write their own plugins
(which could be propietry). Whereas libqb is simply a utility-like
library and does not have this issue.
As long as the license does not scare off all our potential
users I would like it to be LGPL (I like the basic ideals of the FSF).
Regards
Angus
>
> Regards,
> Fabien
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> quarterback-devel mailing list
> quarterback-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/quarterback-devel