[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: guile-lib licensing (input requested)
From: |
Greg Troxel |
Subject: |
Re: guile-lib licensing (input requested) |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:44:38 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) |
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi!
>
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> We should probably have some kind of policy regarding licenses. Here are
>> some options that I can think of:
>
> I'd say leave PD code PD, and move GPLv2+ files to GPLv3+, with clear
> license headers. (My understanding is that there are currently only PD
> and GPLv2+ files, right?) Top-level `COPYING' can be that of GPLv3+.
>
> Thank you for taking care of this!
I was going to say LGPL, but I think a mix of PD and GPLv3+ is fine. I
see the point of full GPL, but also think that it's good to respect the
earlier intent of those who place things in PD or MIT-style license.
It's not like there will be a horde of companies selling closed-source
derivative copies of guile-lib with extra features...
pgpMhDPpEjFdY.pgp
Description: PGP signature