Re: [f-cpu] F-CPU vs ALPHA and licence

[Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:40:44AM +0200, Yann Guidon wrote:
[...]
> > It's still possible to change our licence because few people write
> > code(whygee and Michael, that's all i think). I think that LGPL are more
> > appropriate.
> 
> i am against, you are not. I will follow Michael Riepe's choice.
> What does he vote for ? i do not want to spoil the situation
> between you and me so i prefer to listen to others's choices.
> As you know, i am not the reincarnation of the project.

Neither am I.

I may change my mind in the future, but at the moment I see absolutely no
reason to switch to LGPL.  I want people to have access to the *complete*
source code of their F-CPU (or derived work), not only to the public
parts.  It's a matter of philosophy, not business.  The money makers will
not like the idea, of course -- but do I have to care for them?  Do I have
to feed them?  If they want to make Euros, they shall sit down and *work*.

There is currently only a single reason why I might be convinced to
switch to another license (and that does not automatically mean LGPL):
if the GPL makes it impossible to produce F-CPU chips legally.  We can
cross that bridge when we reach it, so please stop this fruitless F-CPU
license discussion now.

I don't mind if other project members decide to put their sources under
LGPL.  We can convert the license to GPL for the F-CPU, and others may
use the same sources under the terms of the LGPL (which is a win for them,
while we lose nothing -- we don't even have to release our modifications
under LGPL if we don't want to).

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/