[Pkg-isocodes-devel] iso-codes licensing

[Christian Perrier]

> I changed later to LGPL to allow people to 'link against' the code without 
> releasing their code.
> Any lingering references to 'GPL' are mistakes, and should be changed to 
> 'LGPL'.

Sure. Sorry for the mess. As I explained, I'm not very keen with
license stuff. When I'm in doubt, I ask -legal...:-)

>
> I'm not particularly in favour of the BSD, as I'd prefer that anyone that 
> uses the code
> and makes changes should release those changes - witness Microsoft use of 
> the
> BSD networking stack ,without making its code changes free, for example.

On a personal stance, I don't really care... but I understand that
some people may care.

> I think the differences between LGPL and BSD in practice are not very large 
> for this project,
> but people have submitted lots of patches & translations with the 
> expectation of it being
> a 'GPL' project - moving to LGPL was a small move, other moves require good 
> explanations.
>
> I haven't read the LPGL v3 yet; any relevant changes ?


IMHO, if we're in doubt we could ask -legal with a question like "we
want to relicence iso-codes under LGPL and make it compliant with v3,
what should we do"

If I understand correctly, this depends whether you released the
original versions under LGPL 2 strictly or used the mention "and
later".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-isocodes-devel/attachments/20070909/f34a29b9/attachment.pgp