Re: License

[David Sugar]

Curiously enough, most people do not look at the exact terms of the way Common 
C++ is licensed.  It is in fact licensed similar to Guile, which is a GPL with 
certain specific and narrow privileges add on which allow it to function as a 
LGPL library unless locally modified.  This in fact is a little clearer than 
what the LGPL says since it did not, at least at the time, fully account for 
some of the unique characteristics of C++ class frameworks.  The details of 
this can be found in each and every Common C++ source file.

I do not think it is nessisary to enable Common C++ to be 'dual licensed' in a 
way that is friendly or permissible for it to be modified in proprietary form 
and have not sought out the ability to do this with Common C++ or any of my 
packages.  It can, however, be used with proprietary software under the 
license as it stands if Common C++ is itself not modified.

David

Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:

> > > > > > "T" == Torge Szczepanek <address@hidden> writes:
>
>     T> Paul Lemay wrote:
>     >> I would be interested to use the CommonC++ library but, when I
>     >> read the GPL license and the Q&A related to GPL, I am under the
>     >> impression that my code will have to become license under
>     >> GPL. Note that My code
>
>     T> Yes that's right! This is known as "open source" software.
>
> No, this is known as "free software" and is also widely seen as a ploy
> either to force for-profit uses of the software into a dual-licensing
> situation, or to force the software library into a fringe-use situation.
>
> This probably explains why CommonC++ is not common ;)
>
> Dual-licensing of CommonC++ is not possible because no one has secured
> the copyright from _all_ contributors; this is one reason why the FSF
> demands contributors assign copyright over to them (another is so they
> can re-assign the work to others without consulting the original
> author).
>
> While GPL makes very good sense in some situations, for core
> libraries, it is generally not such a great idea: GCC did _not_ see
> widespread use until they relaxed this cascading free-license
> situation on the core C libraries (circa 1988?) after which GCC became
> _the_ compiler throughout the software industry.  
>
> Yes, I wish the world was otherwise, but if wishes were golden,
> beggars would ride: GPL makes very good sense for certain kinds of
> libraries, for example, libraries that are used to create specialized
> public infrastructure, but for core services such as sockets and those
> other components offered in CommonC++, GPL just means we will only see
> use in academic and public-service (I used it on projects for the CBC,
> the Canadian version of PBS, but have not been permitted to use it
> since)
>
> Yes, industry _can_ use it for their own infrastructure software
> (which, I wish they'd realize, is 75% of the code they write) but
> because it cannot be used in their software products, it won't get the
> consideration or the thorough QA it would get if it was LGPL; rather
> than keep one set of libs for internal use and one for external use,
> they want one consistent development environment and shy away from GPL
> libraries.