On Mon Jun 30, 2025 at 3:32 PM CEST, Arnaud Vié wrote: > It is quite uncommon for open source libraries to use GPL nowadays, as it's > very restrictive by nature. GPL remains mostly for "complete" applications > - libraries tend to rather use LGPL, Apache 2.0 or MIT license (depending > on the level of protection they seek), to favour wide usability.
I was a friend with Lous Villa, so I would add MPL 2.0 to that set. [1] And I would happily support the relicensing idea, plain GPL is in my opinion a truly bad idea for the library. Any one of the mentioned would be better. > Of course, publishing under a new license can only be done by the current > rights holder, which according to the libsword LICENSE is the "CrossWire > Bible Society", as an organisation. > Does Troy have the full power of decision on the topic ? If would be probably prudent to ask people on git shortlog -s -e|sort -h -r|head -n to approve. Best, Matěj [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/ -- http://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, @mc...@en.osm.town GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8 If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold. -- blue_beetle (2010-08-26) http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent#3256046
E09FEF25D96484AC.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
