[science-iwg] What about LGPL?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

[science-iwg] What about LGPL?

From: Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:29:24 -0400
Delivered-to: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/science-iwg>
List-help: <mailto:science-iwg-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg>, <mailto:science-iwg-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/science-iwg>, <mailto:science-iwg-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Everyone,

Now that the draft of the charter is out of the way, can we discuss the issues with LGPL science codes and the SWG?

Let's not talk about the GPL. Forget about that one.

Lots of science codes are LGPL. The authors normally pick that license because they want something more open to commercial use than the GPL, but they don't really know about other licenses.

I just re-read Mike's 2009 article about LGPL in Eclipse to refresh my memory of the Foundation's stance, http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/lgpl-pain/ .

I'm only bringing it up because we should probably have an answer for this question ready when scientists come knocking. Mike, Andrew any thoughts?

Jay

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [science-iwg] What about LGPL?
  - From: Mike Milinkovich
- Re: [science-iwg] What about LGPL?
  - From: Andrew Ross

Prev by Date: Re: [science-iwg] A few updates
Next by Date: Re: [science-iwg] What about LGPL?
Previous by thread: [science-iwg] A few updates
Next by thread: Re: [science-iwg] What about LGPL?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs