Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Maybe I should read the license. :-) Is "GPL-with-library-exception" the same as LGPL? The key thing for me is that since I work on commercial software, I need a license that permits me to integrate it with a "larger body of work" without the larger work having to use the same licensing terms. If "GPL-with-library-exception" permits that, than I can probably use it. We are currently using software covered by the Mozilla and Sun Public Licenses, for instance, without any issues. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...] > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:28 PM > To: Michael Brennan > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: SAX2 ... missing features? > > > Ah, well lots of us are quite happy with things that are simpler > than W3C's schemas, but we don't need to start that again! > > I must say I'm perplexed by folk who are happy using proprietary > libraries (binary), but won't use "GPL-with-library-exception". > GPL has fewer restrictions: never a viral NDA to worry about, > never any contamination of your apps just from using the library. > > So far as I know, no vendor other than Microsoft has found any > problem using, for example, the GNU C library with proprietary > closed-source applications. Every vendor shipping apps on > Linux does exactly that. IBM and Oracle are just some of the > better known names; neither has gives away their core IP when > they link against GNU Libc. > > - Dave
|
