[Monotone-devel] Re: oh, licenses! [Re: Problem when commiting]

[Andre Nathan]

graydon hoare said:
> so, "what I want" is enforced provision, to end users, of the source
> code for the libre parts of a program. I think source code is important.

I fully agree. Source code is what is most important. The thing is that
there's no risk at all that the free parts will become unfree, because
since you released it as free software in the first place, anyone
interested can always get a copy from your distribution.

> I'm curious about what you want, which is not possible with LGPL. is it
> so troubling to put the proprietary parts in their own files and compile
> them separately?

Actually I don't want add any proprietary parts to monotone :)
It's just that I have a general dislike for the FSF licenses because they
are too long, too restrictive and too open to interpretation (which is
only a good thing for lawyers...)

For example, section 2.b of the LGPL says that the LGPL doesn't apply if
parts not derived from the LGPL'd code "can be reasonably considered
independent and separate works in themselves". I'm sure lawyers would love
to spend many months debating what "reasonably independent" means...

And then the LGPL says that the use of "small macros or inline functions"
is unrestricted. Does that mean that if I change the formatting of the
code I can change the effect of the license? At least in C I could write
everything in one line :) I don't think a license should try to cover this
kind of detail, it's just pointless.

That's why I like the BSD-style licenses. They're simple, free and
everyone knows what it means.

Andre