[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: SAX2 ... missing features?
- From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
- To: 'David Brownell' <email@example.com>,Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@Allegis.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:49:25 -0700
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:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:28 PM
> To: Michael Brennan
> Cc: email@example.com
> 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