[ODE] Suggest a type of Licence for GIMPACT

John Miles jmiles at pop.net
Thu Oct 26 20:12:54 MST 2006

He *is* putting forth a functional argument; you're just choosing not to
read it for some reason that escapes the rest of us. :-)  If I'm a PS3
developer and I adapt GIMPACT to run on an SPU core, I can't release that
library's complete source code in compliance with the LGPL.  It is not a
matter of taste or religious preferences.  It's a matter of not being sued
into oblivion for disclosing Sony's IP.

I appreciate Francisco's contribution regardless of whatever license he
decides to adopt.  However, there are some very real reasons why BSD
licenses are more useful to commercial developers, and I'd encourage him to
give that some thought.  For example, with a BSD-licensed library,
proprietary-platform developers who can't release their entire library
source code can still offer feedback and patches if they'd like to give
something back to the community.  With LGPL, the library simply doesn't get
used in those cases.

-- john

> Jon Watte (ODE) escreveu:
> > Daniel K. O. wrote:
> >>
> >> The only definitive argument against [L]GPL is: "I don't want it".
> >
> > No, there are at least two other arguments:
> Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to argue with you.
> If you bring on a functional argument - either in favour or against -
> somebody can easily argue with you; it will just add fuel to the fire.
> But not when it's a matter of taste. That's what I tried to say. I could
> imagine a few ways to invalidate your arguments.
> It's like discussing which religion/operating system/text editor is
> better; we all know where this kind of discussion will head to.

More information about the ODE mailing list