From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10459 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2003 21:35:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10452 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 21:35:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 21:35:58 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HLZwH05952 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:35:58 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HLZwI28495; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:35:58 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-28.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.28]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6HLZv532737; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:35:57 -0400 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h6HLZpR16698; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:35:51 -0700 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 21:35:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030717213551.ZM16697@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Bob Rossi "Re: libtgdb or libgdb" (Jul 17, 4:49pm) References: <20030717005406.GB6987@white> <200307171535.LAA06576@smtp.ott.qnx.com> <20030717204938.GE8156@white> To: Bob Rossi , Alain Magloire Subject: Re: libtgdb or libgdb Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On Jul 17, 4:49pm, Bob Rossi wrote: > Well, I am not sure about the license. To me, thats not really a big > deal. It will defiantly be under the GPL, however, I don't know what to > do with the copyright. The license is a big deal. The license you choose will likely determine how widely your library is used or even if it is used at all. > Is there any advantage to making it GPL and keeping the copyright or > making it LGPL and giving the copyright to the FSF? If you make the licesne GPL, but retain the copyright, you (and only you) have the option of relicensing the software under other terms. These terms might include payment of a fee to you in exchange for a license which allows the library to be linked against proprietary software. If you assign the copyright to the FSF and also persuade the FSF to license your library under the LGPL, then it will be possible for non-free software to link against your library. However, given that your library would provide a way for non-free software to use the facilities available in GDB (which is GPL'd software in the GNU project), the FSF might not be willing to accept your library. > Would either of those scenarios effect companies? Yes. Using the LGPL would allow proprietary software to be linked against your library. Using the GPL would disallow this unless you provide alternate licensing terms for proprietary software. Kevin