On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:02:35AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Leuven, E. wrote: > > >> We had a lawyer, Richard Hawkins, who explained that this was > >> indeed how the legal world would interpret this licence. > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=lyx-devel&m=104635662605797&w=2 > > > > a good reason for keeping the license as it is... > > My tidy mind still finds explicit mention of a closed source XForms > ridiculous. If the licence really does mean > > "In addition, as a special exception, the LyX Team gives permission to > link the code of this program with any third party, closed source > library and distribute linked combinations including the two."
I am still not not sure I would agree with such a change. > However, if we really do mean that 'special exception is given to link > against XForms' and as XForms is no longer closed source, then the > special exception is no longer needed and can be removed and lyx > reverts to a 'pure' GPL licence. Looks preferable to me. But given that's nearly impossible to get the needed consensus of about 100 contributors to a license change I don't think it's worth to discuss this point, even if there wasn't such a discussion for a couple of months now... Andre'
