Paul Rubin wrote: > "Pierre Quentel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I am Karrigell's author. I have chosen the GPL licence almost at random > > (I saw that the Python licence was GPL-compatible), so I don't mind > > switching to another Open Source licence if the GPL is liable to cause > > problems. Which one would you advice : BSD ? Python licence ? another ? > > My own hope (not shared by everyone obviously) is that you will stay > with the GPL, but make clear that applications that simply run under > Karrigell but don't modify the Karrigell code aren't subjected to the > GPL. That should satisfy Kent's concerns.
Unfortunately, that doesn't really satisfy the GPL's concerns. The work arguably "contains or is derived from" Karrigell, which is explicitly covered in section 2b of the GPL. If you start excluding key clauses from the GPL, then there's little point using it. To cut a long story short, and to avoid quibbling over the details of how a license designed with the low-level mechanics of C-style programs and libraries in mind actually applies to a language like Python with very loose coupling, I'll just say that this sort of situation is exactly what the LGPL exists for. I would suggest the author adopts the LGPL as a good compromise between the community benefits of GPL and the user benefits of, say, BSD or zlib licenses. -- Ben Sizer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
