> actually at the point of copying the GPL copyleft statement
> to the top of each source file. The toolkit is currently
> source code that link directly into your own project, so the
> GPL seemed at first glance appropriate.
Uh - umm ... I wouldn't do that.
Well, you can of course take the position of a "GPL die hard", that is
trying to use the viral properties of the GPL (it automatically extends
itself to any modification of GPLed code and/or code linked to it), but
I do not feel this is a good idea.
> I do plan, however, to turn this thing into a library at some point.
>
> If it starts out as non-library GPL code, will that cause a
> problem if I wish to relicense it as LGPL when it converts
> into a library?
Not really, _as_long_as_ you hold all the copyrights. If you hold all the
copyrights, you can relicense to your hearts delight, as a license just
applies to a release, not to the copyright, that allows you to make releases
under any license.
However as soon as you incorporate patches from someone, you will later have
to ask them for permission, if you change licensing, as _they_ hold the
copyright to the changes.
> Do I even want to use the LGPL? Or do I want to discourage people from
> making closed source games with the library, and thus keep it just GPL
> anyway?
That is your decision. I personally go for "total freedom", thus using
BSD-style licensing, but that is not a technical issue, more a political, so
I won't give advice on that.
> GPL or LGPL, that is the question. I hadn't really given any great thought
> until now. What do you all thing?
Unless you want to discourage commercial use of your Lib, go for LGPL or BSD
style (which is what LibGGI uses).
CU, ANdy
--
= Andreas Beck | Email : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
