Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[David Bovill]

Richard Gaskin wrote:

>>Has anyone checked:
>>
>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> 
> I read it.  It seems a good discussion of GPL issues as they relate to
> libraries.
> 
> What do you see as the implications for the MC IDE?
> 

GNU use LGPL (lesser GLP) for libraries - and the reasons they argue 
here are specific to their overal strategy of giving open source 
software an edge over closed source solutions - most of the arguments do 
not apply to our situation as we have a closed engine.

As per my previous post - replace 'library' with 'MC IDE' and the 
artilces at gnu.org covering the two main licences make more sense.

The important point is that you are not allowed to distribute GPL code 
with any closed compnents that the GPL code 'links to'. In my reading 
this is exactly what the code in the MC IDE does, which means the 
license would prevent you using the code (or to be more precise 
distibuting the code with any applications you create).

That is why AFAIK we have to use LGPL (or a similar) for the MC IDE and 
aany open source libraries that are released.