Re: [gob-list] Why the generated-code must be distributed under LGPL?

From: George <>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:09:05 -0800

On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 01:28:53AM +0900, Yoichi Imai wrote:
> Hello,
> Why the generated-code must be distributed under LGPL?
> We don't have to distribute a product under LGPL in order to satisfy the
> clauses of GLib's LGPL.
> For example, if we want to use a looser license like modified
> BSD-license (of course compatible with LGPL) or a stricter license that
> satisfy LGPL, we can't distribute a product using GOB under it because
> of the restriction of the license for the generated-code.
> Unless there is a reason or policy, I think you should not force users
> to apply LGPL to the generated-code.
> (If you don't have any policy, it would be better for you to show simple
> notice like this:
> You can distribute the generated code freely, but it must follow the
> licenses of linked libraries such as GLib.
> )
> Glade, which also generates a source code, doesn't add a restriction to
> the generated code.
> I want to use GOB, but I hesitate thanks to this license.

My intention was that it's like linking with glib. I suppose it's not ideal.
I'll relicense the next release so that generated code is public domain.

Feel free to use this email as "permission from the author" to use the
generated code under any license you please.


PS: I seem to remember saying something like this before, I wonder why I
didn't change the license in the cvs, I'll do that now.

George <>
   An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a
   cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                       -- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Received on Sun Nov 28 2004 - 02:11:01 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Apr 17 2011 - 21:05:02 CDT