Choosing a license
compulinkltd at gmail.com
Thu May 10 21:14:00 UTC 2007
I thought about the MPL, but then I read there is a complicating factor
that MPL and GPL code cannot legally be linked together. We need to be
able to link with LGPL code as well.
If I exercise the provision in the MPL to allow a choice of the LGPLv2.1
I should be compatible. Have I then allowed people to bypass the patent
provisions in the MPL? Would the LGPLv3 alone or together with MPL fix
Mitchell Baker wrote:
> The MPL might meet your needs. Specifically designed to do the things
> you mention. Hasn't been updated in a while; still reasonably well
> known and used as a license.
> Smith, McCoy wrote:
>> Lgpl is being revised simultaneous with gpl. See current draft (and
>> other information about that draft and prior drafts) here:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Alspaugh [mailto:compulinkltd at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday,
>> May 10, 2007 1:21 PM
>> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
>> Subject: Choosing a license
>> My company is considering releasing a software library under an
>> open-source license, but since we are developers not lawyers we could
>> use some advise in selecting the most appropriate license. We would like
>> to choose a license with the following characteristics:
>> 1. We want to allow others to link closed-source or commercial software
>> with our open-source software library. We would like for them to give
>> notice or acknowledgment that the work was used in it.
>> 2. If someone modifies the source of the library, we want to require
>> them to release the modification so we could at our option legally
>> include the modification in future versions of the library.
>> 3. We would like to protect ourselves and contributors to the
>> open-source software library when it comes to software patents. We like
>> provision 3 of the Apache 2.0 license.
>> Can you give us a list of software licenses that have these
>> characteristics? The LGPL looks close but I don't see anything like
>> characteristic 3. The Apache 2.0 looks close, but I think it lacks
>> characteristic 2.
>> Are there any plans to revise the LGPL when the GPLv3 is finished to
>> better deal with patents?
More information about the License-discuss