FW: gnu.bytecode & gnu.expr License
Sat, 23 Oct 1999 10:59:25 -0700
Here's the reply I received from Per Bothner about the licenses for
gnu.bytecode and gnu.expr.
Please reply to <mailto:email@example.com> using PGP. My public key can
be found at <http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371>. PGP can be found at
<http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html>. Beginning 11/1/1999, unenciphered
e-mail will be immediately deleted unread. Thank you.
>From: Per Bothner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Paul Snively" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: gnu.bytecode & gnu.expr License
>Date: Fri, Oct 22, 1999, 9:59 AM
> "Paul Snively" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I've recently gotten loosely associated with the E project at
>> <http://www.erights.org>. E is an interpreter written in Java, but would
>> like to become a compiler. E is currently under the Mozilla license and the
>> maintainers are adamant about not changing that. We'd really like to use
>> gnu.bytecode and gnu.expr in the forthcoming E compiler,
> Sounds cool.
>> but they are under
>> the GPL, and the GPL is "link incompatible" with the Mozilla license.
> Well, actually it's a "modified GPL":
> You can use and re-distribute a class
> without restriction (in source or binary form) as long as you use a
> version has not been modified in any way from a version released
> by Per Bothner, Cygnus Solutions, or the Free Software Foundation.
> Thus I don't think it actually *is* link-incompatible.
>> As a consequence of this, I was wondering if you would mind discussing, when
>> you have time, what the issues surrounding the use of the GPL as opposed to,
>> e.g. the LGPL, for gnu.bytecode and gnu.expr are. In short, the LGPL *is*
>> link compatible with the Mozilla Public License, so if gnu.bytecode and
>> gnu.expr were to be made available under the LGPL, it's a very safe bet that
>> the E project would adopt them.
> I have these goals:
> * A license that a fully OSD-compatible.
> * Something that encourages widespread use of Kawa and its sub-libraries,
> and is compatible with commercial use.
> * Encouraging people to submit improvements back to me.
> * A hook for revenue: Something in the license that encourages
> people wanting to use the software for proprietary products to
> pay for a looser license.
> Alas, these are not fully compatible. However, the "modified GPL"
> does seem like a reasonable solution.
> --Per Bothner
> email@example.com http://www.bothner.com/~per/