nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 20:12:36 -0000
Message-Id: <19991004200841.21709.qmail@mail.relight.com>
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:55:50 -0400 you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
>To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
>Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
>Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
>
>
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
>> > 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?
>>
>> Because they want to borrow some of our code, but are stuck with code
>> which is GPLed (you can't mix MPLed code in with GPLed code because of the
>> restrictive nature of the GPL).
>
>So why not use LGPL? IOW, why use MPL instead of LGPL?
Because, as I've said multiple times now, the LGPL is too restrictive
for a potentially large part of the people who would otherwise be
interested in contributing and using this code.
In an ideal world everyone would be able to accept open source code,
but the world isn't ideal. It would limit our interest in this project
dramatically if we would be limited from using third party code which
we can't control licensing of because of license issues. It would probably
mean I'd be redirected to do my widget set development for another system
for instance, or it might mean we'd have to fork the tree and keep working
on a less restricted version.
I absolutely symphatize with those who want to use GPL'd code with it
too, and that's why I suggested dual licensing as an option.
Regards,
Vidar
