[parted-devel] Licensing

[leslie.polzer at gmx.net]

Hello Ithamar,

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 11:48:54AM -0800, Ithamar Adema wrote:

> First of all, this question is not to start a flame war, just to see
> why this decision was made. I was wondering, why parted is GPL and
> not LGPL?
This is a question you'd have to ask Andrew Clausen <clausen at gnu.org>.
  He is the original author of GNU Parted.

> LGPL seems like a logical choice, at least for libparted, which might
> make it more used and will still guarantee that any modifications are
> submitted back.
Isn't this particular argument true for every piece of free software
out there?

> (Ok, I'll be honest, I might know an interested party, which would
> spend significant hours of development / testing, but since it would
> be used in a comercial closed-source product, libparted is currently
> not a real option).
I don't think we have a need for a decision here...
  Changing the license would require us to ask every person who has
contributed significantly if they'd be willing to release their code
under the new license.  Also, many of them have assigned their copyright
to the Free Software Foundation.
  If you (or the mentioned company) are willing to do this we can talk
about it.

I'm not all against re-releasing (or maybe forking) GNU Parted (or
libparted) under the LGPL.  You can also contact Stallman about it.

  Kind regards,

    Leslie

-- 
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x52D70289
http://nic-nac-project.de/~skypher/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/parted-devel/attachments/20060211/5f80ad3b/attachment.pgp