[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: License for a LilyPond library
From: |
Mattes |
Subject: |
Re: License for a LilyPond library |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:55:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
SOGoMail 2.2.9a |
Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015 11:30 CET, Urs Liska <address@hidden> schrieb:
> Hi all,
Hi Urs,
> once again returning to this ever-hot topic ...
>
> I'm going to release a library with LilyPond code, and I'm not
> completely sure which license this should be done with:
>
> My intentions are:
>
> * Anybody should be able to *use* the library, that is \include it and
> use its functions, even in commercial and closed-source environments
> * Anybody should be allowed to modify the library code itself, but
> this should be forced to be open source.
>
> My impression is that the LGPL is created exactly for this purpose. Am I
> right with that? Or not? If not, what would be a good alternative?
Yes, the second requirement pretty much excludes BSDish licences.
But, to be realistic: even with LGPL, the licence only covers _redistribution_
of
the code, not use. So, someone changing your library can't be forced to commit
back
unless he/she redistributes the modified code.
HTH Ralf Mattes
> TIA
> Urs
>