From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31779 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 20:49:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sourcenav-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sourcenav-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31711 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 20:49:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO PH01SRV02.photuris.com) (141.150.26.4) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 20:49:41 -0000 Received: by PH01SRV02.photuris.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: Doug Fraser To: 'Robert Hartley' , sourcenav@sources.redhat.com Subject: RE: SN backend GPL or LGPL? (was: SourceNav release...) Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:43:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 First, let me say that I agree that the Lesser GPL (LGPL) is a far more flexible license for development of library components. No doubt. But SN is an entity, a whole, not a collection, so I would be surprised to see it go LGPL in a general sense. That being said, I'll attempt to explain my reasoning for supporting your earlier 'CORBA' example. Using SN as a tool in cooperation with other tools would not run against the spirit of OpenSource. If that were true, then the compilation of proprietary solutions using GCC would also run against the spirit. As would using PERL to handle CGI into a proprietary database on a web server. All these tools are used as solutions in proprietary settings every day. Deriving a proprietary work from an open source product would run counter, because that derived work itself is what is being marketed. In the same sense, you can derive works from GPL products for your own personal use without turning those changes back, as long as you do not make the derived work available to anyone else. So in that sense, if you bundle SN with a collection of other tools that communicate with an autonomous SN to perform useful work, that would be an accepted use. What would matter, though, is if you modified SN to provide a closed backend to enable communications to your tools. If, however, you provide that modification to the public, then you have met your responsibility to the community by providing a useful extension to the existing tool. Doug > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Hartley [mailto:rhartley@ics.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:20 PM > To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com > Subject: Re: SN backend GPL or LGPL? (was: SourceNav release...) > All other issues aside, using Corba or something as a > workaround would not be > in the collaborative spirit of open source. > > That is why I am wondering about an LGPL version of the SN backend. > > Thanks to all for listening, > > - Rob > >