nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 18:49:06 -0000
Message-Id: <025b01bf0e98$2d575820$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Haerr ####@####.####
To: 'Alan Cox' ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: Request for comments - Microwindows
> On Monday, October 04, 1999 12:13 PM, Alan Cox
####@####.#### wrote:
> : > which includes all of microwindows and all the enhancements
> : > to mini-X, can be easily licensed this way. But the nano-X
> : > project has a large core of GrXXX routines that were originally
> : > written by David Bell, and his license is completely unrestrictive,
> : > except that his copyright notice must still be included. So
> :
> : His license doesnt clash with the LGPL. The LGPL doesnt allow you to
> : remove other peoples copyright notices either
> :
> So even though David Bell said "Permission is granted to use, distribute,
> or modify this source, provided that this copyright notice remain intact"
we
> can say that now his code is subject to another agreement, the LGPL?
> Doesn't the LGPL restrict more than the above?
Yes, it does, but he doesn't restrict placing new restrictions on derived
works with his copyright, which is the main reason for using GPL vs. his
license. GPL prevents ppl from making proprietary works based on your free
work.
> Also, can we have a GPL license on the server and an LGPL license
> on the applications? Can we have both even if we allow linked-in
> apps and client/server apps?
Wow, seems like we are thinking along the same lines. :-) I commented on
that already in my previous message.
Regards,
Brad
