SN backend GPL or LGPL? (was: SourceNav release...)

Ian Roxborough irox@redhat.com
Wed Feb 13 11:25:00 GMT 2002


On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:38:26 -0500 Robert Hartley <rhartley@ics.com> wrote:
>
> What I was trying to ask is if we made the back end of SN a shared library,
> libSNdb.so, would every thing that linked to this library have to be GPL'd or
> would the library be able to be treated as a LGPL work?

This would require a change to the licensing, which probably
won't happen.

Ian.

> "Davies, Mike" wrote:
> 
> > > What if we had some sort of Corba type middle ware that provided a
> > > decent distributed API, without actually linking the code in.
> > >  Would any
> > > application that connected to it still be bound by the GPL?
> >
> > Any changes you made to the Sourcenav Code would be GPLed and you would have
> > to provide them in the usual ways,  however it seems to me that any
> > application that used the CORBA interface would be effectively dynamically
> > linked to it and so might escape the GPL.
> >
> > > I am trying to find out here if there is any room for commercial
> > > developers to contribute to SN.  It would be a shame to let
> > > it all go to
> > > waste.
> >
> > Well,  many commercial firms contribute to GPLed SW,  there is nothing
> > stopping you from doing that.  If you are trying to make a proprietry
> > version of SourceNav then this is prohibited by the licence.  That is quite
> > apart from the implications for the feelings of people who contributed their
> > efforts freely for the common good.
> >
> > Mike Davies
> 



More information about the Sourcenav mailing list