Re: [ANNOUNCE] libxenlight

[Tim Post <echo@echoreply.us>]

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 17:41 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Is this yet-another-GPL lib? If so, that is really disappointed.
> 
> In any case, donning a personal hat for a moment, there is nothing
> wrong with releasing a library under the full GPL.  Whether to do so
> is a political and strategic decision like many other choices of
> licence.

Its also a no brainer. When you combine libraries, the most restrictive
license in the mix prevails. 

> 
> It's fair enough to argue one way or the other about licences but
> there is no general rule that the Lesser GPL should be used for a
> library.

That is subjective, to a degree. If libxc was (three clause) BSD and
libxl was released GPL3 .. it would be an entirely different story for
some.

You probably remember the whole editline() / readline() fiasco when
various shells were competing for the best usability. If someone wants
the library code bad enough under a less restrictive license, they will
write and (perhaps) release it with a functionally compatible interface.

The least restrictive license, for libraries is almost always the better
idea .. for the above reason alone, unless the purpose is purely
political.

I'm not being antagonistic and I do understand why the GPL was chosen.
I'm just citing a source of possibly 'heated' confusion, its not the
first time this has come up.

Regards,
--Tim

-- 
Monkey + Typewriter = Echoreply ( http://echoreply.us )