OSLib license

[John Tytgat]

In message <163fdd607a60f834876cfaaf167ea9c3 at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
          John-Mark Bell <jmb202 at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:52:04 +0000, Ralph Corderoy <ralph at inputplus.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Jonathan Coxhead wrote:
> >> John Tytgat wrote:
> >> > When all copyright holders on OSLib agree, they can re-license OSLib
> >> > under a different or even more than one license. I think the answer
> >> > could be in dual or tri licensing covering the conflicting goals
> >> > Jonathan outlined above.  I'm not aware of any authoritive source of
> >> > dual/triple licensing but
> >> > <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license> is rather
> >> > informative to me.  Perhaps GPL 2 + LGPL 2.1 + MPL 1.1 tri license
> >> > like Mozilla/Firefox/ Thunderbird are using ?
> >>
> >> Multiple licensing sounds like a complicated solution to this problem.
> >> What do you think of the MIT licence?
> > 
> > I don't think mulitple licenses are complicated, and it lets the
> > licensee pick the license most suitable for their purposes and their
> > ideals.
> 
> Surely all that is needed here is a clarification of the existing licensing
> arrangement, rather than a wholesale licence change? GPL + a linking
> exception is a pretty well-understood phenomenon, so shouldn't cause any
> great difficulties.

To come back on a very old discussion : instead of going for multiple
licenses, this suggestion is exactly what I just did for all public
headers (C/assembler) of OSLib (including OSLibSupport):
<URL:http://ro-oslib.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ro-oslib?view=rev&revision=327>

More background for those interested:
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception>.

John.
-- 
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home                                 BASS
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                             ARM powered, RISC OS driven