nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 18:59:34 -0000
Message-Id: <029b01bf0e99$a1f89030$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:38:00 -0400 you wrote:
> >What you suggest is brilliant IMO. I recommend to go ahead with your
ideas.
> >
> >Only two comments, both about the licensing:
> >
> >1) I would prefer *GPL over MPL.
> >
> >2) I'm fine with LGPL, but I would like to see GPL in here somewhere if
> >feasable.
>
> I'd suggest dual licensing. *GPL is completely unworkable for many people,
> for a variety of reasons.
>
> >I was thinking, how about using GPL for server layer(s), and LGPL for
client
> >layer(s)? I think that as long the client and server are separated by a
> >messaging protocol it will work.
>
> The problem, as you've noted, is that many would want to link the server
> into their applications. I know that we (Screen Media) can't continue to
> work on it if the code isn't available under another license (apart from
> the *GPL's) as well, and the result would be yet another code split.
Can you say what it is in *GPL that would make it unworkable for Screen
Media?
> I thought we'd already agreed on the MPL as a decent common denominator,
> but I'd have no problems with dual licensing the code under both *GPL
> and MPL.
This is an idea, but why? Doesn't MPL completely kill any GPL benefit? Why
would someone choose to use it under GPL when they can use it under MPL?
Regards,
Brad
