|
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice wrote: > > > 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. Can you use the LGPL for non-libraries? The word "library" seems to be used throughout the text of the license.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.