nanogui: Licensing
Subject:
Re: Licensing
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
2 Jul 1999 09:47:38 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9907021022071.17007-100000@www.linuxhacker.org>
On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Alex Holden wrote:
> Bell's code as GPL, not MPL. We're going to have to ask David if he's
> prepared to let us relicense it as MPL or not (I think he's still lurking
> on the list- any comment David?), and if not, go back to the drawing board
> on licensing. A generic dynamic linking mechanism is a possibility, but
Okay, David mailed me privately about this, and whilst he is happy to
license the code as LGPL, he says he doesn't know enough about the MPL to
comment on it (I explained why it seems ideal for Nano-X and gave him a
pointer to where to find it but didn't get a response). So, I'm not sure
where to go with the licensing now. The LGPL obviously doesn't fit the
Nano-X model as it has various built in assumptions and rules which only
make sense if the code is in the form of a library which can be linked to
a proprietory program, rather than a program which allows proprietory
drivers and programs to be linked into it. The GPL is clearly not ideal as
if you license any part of the program as GPL, all of it (including any
proprietory stuff people might want to link into it) has to be GPLed.
Dynamically loading of the proprietory code is a possible loophole in the
GPL, but it seems a bit hacky really, especially if we want to be easily
portable. Going with a BSD style license without the advertising clause
(basically "do what you want with it except for removing the copyright
notice") is a definite possibility, since David's original copyright was
compatible with that model, except that some of us want the protection of
a license which requires improvements to our code be contributed back to
us.
So what seems to be left is:
* Hope that David changes his mind.
* Go with LGPL, accept the limitations it would impose on the way we code
(defined APIs between the proprietory and non proprietory code, etc.), and
hope that nobody notices that the license doesn't make any sense for our
use of it.
* Don't provide any way to load proprietory code (clearly what RMS would
want, but would reduce the attractiveness of Nano-X to companies wanting a
tiny windowing system for embedded use, who otherwise might have helped us
improve Nano-X).
* Write the mini-X code out of Nano-X (quite a large and thankless task,
and a lot of effort to have to put in just to get around copyright
problems).
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
