Chris Condrat on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:54:45 +0100
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Licensing restrictions
- From: Chris Condrat <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:53:00 -0700
- Delivery-date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:54:46 +0100
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=XAq6fXrCMD5j+obclQuq8zq8+hqcHUKSi/rBCdMMp1KEHkdYCQZnvUAhWLm4hHWcLBqFSJD8Zqkkp0W3aIoHa3RTzSLzFNgcPbjTTmkMlsH8+iMO2nVrpRz4pi44uxQMZKW4ktrpCk1dumOH24gtJJrrVXHYbCvl4QKWLM4gB4o=
- Mailing-list: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
Is it possible to release the PARI library under a less-restrictive license such as the LGPL? While we all derive benefit from the GPL, the parasitic nature of the license, especially when applied to a library, makes it useless for applications which feature code, specialized algorithms, or techniques which cannot be released into the public domain.
Sadly, situations arise where there is a need to keep information proprietary, but resources are lacking to acquire less-restrictive licensed, often commercial, software. The LGPL would allow applications which use PARI, but do not necessarily modify the library itself, to be released without source code. This would therefore ensure that PARI remains free and open source, but does not burden projects which use it but are not involved in its development.