GPL vs LGPL?

[Linas Vepstas]

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 11:07:58AM -0600, Matthew Vanecek was heard to rema=
rk:
> What's the official Gnucash policy re GPL vs LGPL?  Some of the
> libraries could conceivably be used by other systems (e.g., the engine,
> or the back ends).  I would prefer to use LGPL for code/libraries I
> write, but I'd rather be in line with the official Gnucash party line.

My original intent was to split out the engine & backends, and lgpl
them.  However, this never happened; and in the interveneing time,=20=20
many others have contributed.  It is my understanding that
to change the license at this point would require unanimous
agreement between all  past contributors to these components.

The point of lgpl was to be able to encourage other apps to make
use of the engine, and thereby hopefully increase the size of the
developer's pool.  However, the engine is still not a separataly
installable library, and there are no other apps that use it, and
so this idea remains unrealized ... and the lgpl discussion
hypothetical.

I have nothing against having new code for libraries go in under
the lgpl; I don't beleive this would cause any compatiblity
problems.  Changing the license of any existing code should not
be undertaken, at least not without, umm some delicacy.


--linas




--=20
pub  1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <linas@linas.org>
PGP Key fingerprint =3D 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984  3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE93sd2ZKmaggEEWTMRAh5wAJ9cLTZva74LfSvcuDj6IjeyVUB2EQCdGhal
j7XhJSSjZrTPp6RFZJpKbic=
=Fzvv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+--