Re: Open source licenses explained
Matt Lewis wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious as to how the LGPL is more restrictive. You can't even share
> binaries with the 2.5 source license, let alone source. The LGPL just
> goes the other way, saying that you *have* to allow distribution of the
> source.
The only way that the LGPL is more restrictive is that you have to open source
your contributions. The current license allows you to keep your improvements
hidden if so desired.
> I think you're confusing the LGPL with the GPL. I'm not so familiar with
> the MPL, but it sounds like a derivative of the LGPL. Basically, if Euphoria
> were LGPL'd, any modifications you made to the interpreter would be LGPL'd,
> too. But you could link it to other non-LGPL'd code, and you wouldn't
> have to release any of that code.
Nope, I'm not confusing the two. What you say is correct (except that the MPL is
not a derivative of the LGPL). The difference between the MPL and LGPL (my
examples probably weren't that clear) is that you can use MPLed code in a closed
source project you just need to open source any changes to the original source
files. If I have files A, B, and C files A and B are proprietary or whatever and
C is MPL file C can be used with no problems in the program so long as I release
C to the public. If C was LGPL however A and B would have to be LGPLed as well
and my entire program's code would have to be released.
> Even if Euphoria were GPL'd, I don't think that you'd have to GPL anything
> that you wrote in Euphoria. You'd have issues if you translated, since
> you'd be linking to the Euphoria run-time library.
The problem with Euphoria being GPL is that I couldn't then use it to make an
Apache module or as a scripting language in a commercial application.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
