OsLib licence

[Tony van der Hoff]

On 11 Feb 2003, in message <3E490351.7161.5D547B at localhost>,
"Jonathan Coxhead" <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>    There was no LGPL then (or at least, I didn't know about it if there
> was).  That's the whole of the reason.
> 
>    I support Richard Stallman's philosophy and goals, but I wanted OSLib to 
> useful for everyone, including people who develop software commercially. As
> you  probably know, the GPL is "infectious": if you link to a library that
> falls  under the GPL, you have to put your code under the GPL. Some parts
> of RISC O S  use OSLib, so that's clearly not acceptable. The LGPL does not
> have that  problem, as I understand it, so if we want to put OSLib under
> LGPL, that's  probably easier.
> 
>    But I've never actually read the LGPL, so my understanding of that may
> be  wrong. I am not a lawyer, and I have no interest whatever in that side
> of the  industry. I just like to write software, and for it to be useful
> and good.
> 
>    So, if someone has a solid proposal for a change here, let's hear it!
> 
>    On 11 Feb 2003, at 19:52, Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
[snip]

I looked in to some of these issues when we started, and came to the
conclusion that you had made the right choice.

There are, of course, nowadays, a number of licences which may, or may not be
more appropriate, but I believe that the present situation is totally
adequate. I am surprised at Colin's query, and privately believe it to be
more a case of mischief-making than a genuine problem.  We shall see.

The LGPL is no more appropriate than the GPL for what we want to achieve.
The former requires binary object modules for any proprietary software to be
publicly distributed, so that the application can be re-linkes with any
updated release of the public-domain library. Clearly, in our case this is
excessively onerous, so a relaxation would be required, regardless of whether
we used GPL or LGPL as a base.

A further consideration is that SourceForge *require* any code they host to
be GPL, or LGPL, and evidently do examine this from time to time. They
queried me over the relaxation to GPL, when I first opened the project, but
they were evidently satisfied with my response. I have no desire to re-host
the project.

I have, over the years, had maybe a handful of specific queries regarding the
licence, but it seems the vast majority of users are quite happy, or not
bothered. I see no reason to change.

I believe the web site clearly states the licence conditions, including the
OSLib directories that they apply to, and there is no doubt over ownership.
If anyone can think of better wording, please let me know, and I'll be happy
to change it.

Otherwise, let's just regard this as a storm in a teacup.

Cheers, Tony.

-- 
Tony van der Hoff         | MailTo:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
                          | MailTo:avanderhoff at iee.org
Buckinghamshire, England  | http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk