nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 19:44:33 -0000
Message-Id: <02fb01bf0e9f$eae15c90$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 you wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
> That depends on what you consider the benefit of the GPL in this case.
> It would allow people to write GPL'd programs with it, and to user GPL'd
> code in their applications, *OR* to link it to non-free programs (using
> the server under the MPL).
I don't think that I understand what you mean. The licensing of a library
does never prevent me from licesing my code under GPL.
> The main downside I see is that we'd increase the risc for splitting the
> tree again, if someone wants to contribute code, but only under the GPL
> or only under the MPL.
Dual-licensing practically encourages splitting.
> The MPL allow static linking without releasing object code. It
> also allows non-free additions to the project (read: drivers for hardware
> where specs are only available under NDA), as long as they are in separate
files.
Wouldn't an LGPL'ed server part allow proprietary drivers too? I don't see
the benefit of MPL here.
> I don't think we would be able to live with the whole code licensed under
> the LGPL, but if the client code for the networked version is dual
> licensed LGPL/MPL, and the rest is under LGPL, then that would be
something
> we could live with.
OK, I can see your business reason for the server being LGPL vs. GPL (so
that you can link in proprietary hardware drivers).
And I can see your business reason for the client being LGPL (so that you
can link it from proprietary programs).
I still do not understand your need for MPL at all.
Plus...
I do not at all like the fact that if the server side is under LGPL then
people will be able to hide drivers from us, as I think this has the
potential to seriously injure Micro*'s open-source value.
I can live with the fact that people need to link in proprietary
applications and can accept the client side being LGPL.
Regards,
Brad
