need some licencing advice

[Scott Elcomb]

On 7/17/06, bob <ican-rZHaEmXdJNJWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > To get the result you want, IMO, any library implementing your API
> > should be LGPL'd as you've already done with your SIMPL stuff.
>
> I considered this but most of the code would not be in the form of a library
> but rather a series of cooperating, highly extendable executable modules each
> which link to the LGPL'd SIMPL library.   As such I couldn't see the language
> of the LGPL applying.    I suppose I could rework the framework aspects of
> the code so that it could be cast as a library ... but that seems a little
> like the "tail wagging the dog".

AFAIK, you wouldn't need to cast it as a library.  Wikipedia notes
that OpenOffice.org is licensed under the LGPL.  The LGPL was
originally intended for libraries, but it was later renamed to the
Lesser GPL for a number of reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGPL
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html

> What do you know about the various MPL derivatives?

For myself, I know nothing about derivatives, and only the bare
essentials (for my purposes - GPL/LGPL compatability) about the MPL
from it's faq.

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html

-- 
Scott Elcomb
http://w3.avidus.ca/

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle,
stand like a rock."

  - Thomas Jefferson
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml