Re: [LINUX5250] License is a non-issue?

["Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice" <eraserhead@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:13:22AM -0600, Steve Fox wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 00:42, Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice wrote:
> > I'm surprised lp5250d.c and scs2ascii.c are not on the list.  Basically the
> > idea was to put the library source under LGPL but the actual programs under
> > GPL.
>
> I think this would be ideal. It needs to be easy to ship binaries
> without violating any licenses.
>
> http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/products/aixos/linux/download.html
>
> I'd like to see tn5250 on that list some day, not to mention that some
> Linux distributions (SuSE for iSeries) already ship it (I believe).
>
> Would it be possible to get agreement from everyone to switch to the
> above licensing scheme? I'd be willing to mod the RPM .spec file so that
> libtn5250 and tn5250 packages are generated separately, if needed.
>

I say just go for the LGPL on the whole thing, anyway.  The code which we
should be protecting with the GPL is a _very_ small portion, easily rewritten
from scratch by anyone who doesn't like the GPL, and I don't think it's worth
the headache of having multiple licenses.

> --
>
> Steve Fox
> IBM Linux Technology Center
> http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc
> http://k-lug.org
>

-Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice