You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl> on 2008/05/06 00:28:20 UTC

Re: [jira] Commented: (SHINDIG-60) Shindig does not properly support the FEED content type as defined by the gadgets spec for gadgets.io.MakeRequest

While IANAL either, but after approximately 12 years in the open  
source scene i feel like a semi qualified amateur :-)

Including the source of GPL code in your own would also make your own  
code GPL. Also 'linking against it'  would imply that your program is  
now also subject to the GPL. The GPL does allow usage thru 'standard  
interfaces' without the viral clause of it counting (think: compiling  
a .c file with with gcc does not make your project GPL) but anything  
that either includes it in its own source code, or links against it,  
is inside of the scope of the license.

The LGPL has an exception for this (formally known as the Library-GPL  
but now called the Lesser-GPL to promote the 'real deal' version of  
the license), so LGPL libraries you could use in shindig (and even  
include in the repo/distribution) without affecting the license of the  
main code base. Any modifications done to that library would be LGPL  
too, but your main code base remains as it is.

What we would be looking to use is something under the BSD/MIT/Apache  
family of licenses if at all possible or otherwise with a LGPL  
license, something that doesn't have the viral clause that the GPL and  
relatives have.

The apache license is preferred by some companies since it is much  
less restrictive then the (L)GPL & related licenses, for instance it  
doesn't state that you -have- to share your modifications with anyone  
(which the (L)GPL style licenses do). So this means you can keep your  
work private and hidden if you want too, which is attractive to some.

	-- Chris

On May 6, 2008, at 12:04 AM, John Hjelmstad wrote:

> IANAL, but my understanding is that any code that links to GPL- 
> licensed code
> must be GPL-licensed as well (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License -  
> Criticism). Can
> anyone confirm/deny in this case