License Committee Report for September 2009
Giancarlo Niccolai
gc at falconpl.org
Mon Nov 16 21:16:02 UTC 2009
In data lunedì 16 novembre 2009 21:47:47, hai scritto:
> Bruce Perens scripsit:
> > In this day of runtime shared libraries, LGPL should not be an issue.
> > Guile, of course, is straight LGPL. No doubt there are others.
>
> ECL (Embedded Common Lisp) and EEL (Extensible Embeddable Language) both
From ECL license:
PLEASE NOTE THAT:
This license covers all of the ECL program except for the files
src/lsp/loop2.lsp ; Symbolic's LOOP macro
src/lsp/pprint.lsp ; CMUCL's pretty printer
src/lsp/format.lsp ; CMUCL's format
and the directories
contrib/ ; User contributed extensions
src/clx/ ; portable CLX library from Telent
Look the precise copyright of these extensions in the corresponding
files.
> Rhino uses MPL+GPL, which gives more or less the same effect.
Fusion of two licenses. A thing we want to avoid.
> Tcl and Elk Scheme use BSD.
From TCL site:
The following terms apply to the all versions of the core Tcl/Tk releases, the
Tcl/Tk browser plug-in version 2.0, and TclBlend and Jacl version 1.0. Please
note that the TclPro tools are under a different license agreement. This
agreement is part of the standard Tcl/Tk distribution as the file named
"license.terms".
ELK uses a pure BSD license; as noticed in previous mail, this is a bit too
simple licensing scheme for our needs. (Still, no LGPL nor GPL).
About EEL....
""""
EEL Licensing
Free/Open Source Software
EEL is completely Free/Open Source. All source code is available under the
terms of the GNU LGPL.
Simplified, this means that EEL may be used in commercial closed source
products as well as Free software. There is no license fee, no royalties and
no restrictions upon the licensing terms of software that uses EEL.
The only restriction is that if you modify EEL itself, you must make the
modified source code available under the terms of the LGPL.
NOTE: BSD, X11/MIT or a similar license is under consideration as an
alternative to the LGPL.
"""
Well, this all is a personal opinion of the author about LGPL effect, which
IMHO is a bit simplified and incorrect. Also, he seems to be a bit unhappy with
LGPL (still too restrictive). As in our case.
===
And we're back on my claim that, to go open-source BUT interface with the
commercial world, you need either a bsd-like license where you drop opening of
the core software, or some sort of dual licensing AND/OR home made exception,
AND/OR special per-customer grants.
Bests, Giancarlo.
More information about the License-review
mailing list