[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Licensing of liblouis tools and xml2brl

  • From: Michael Whapples <mwhapples@xxxxxxx>
  • To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:04:42 +0100

Hello John,
I think your idea of having a page to explain a little about the license and usage is a good idea. While it is common sense to actually read the licenses for full details, may be just have something at the bottom of the page saying something like "For full details of the licenses then visit" and have some links to copies of the licenses.

Michael Whapples
On 07/10/09 19:22, John J. Boyer wrote:
The other John agrees. Unless there are  further objections, I think
Christian should go ahead. The draft of a licensing and use notice which
I posted on Monday is intended to allay the fears which some people
might have about the LGPL and GPL. Does anyone have comments on that?

Thanks,
John

On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:09:18AM -0700, John Gardner wrote:
Perhaps there is no legal need, but the two John's do appreciate being
asked, as do all other members of this list I hope.  Mostly we want to
be sure that liblouis remains as useful as possible to all potential
users. If having some tools as GPL excludes any users, we should all
work together to find a better way.  So let me make a final call to ask
whether GPL licenses on the tools listed by Christian will make liblouis
unusable by anybody.  If not, then I interpret this to mean that we all
concur that he should go ahead and do it.  If some unforeseen problem
arises later, we always retain the option of separating the GPL-licensed
tools from the liblouis repository and provide a link to those GPL items
for those who want them.

John Gardner





On 10/7/2009 4:45 AM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Hello,

Christian Egli, le Wed 07 Oct 2009 11:38:12 +0200, a écrit :
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 10:12 -0500, John J. Boyer wrote:
I agree in general. Despite my dislike of the GPL I think it is phobably
the best way to go for the tools and xml2brl now.
Am I correct in my assumption that this means that the copyright
holders, i.e. the two Johns agree to change the license of the tools to
GPL?
As I already said in a previous post, while it's a good idea to ask
them, there is no strict need to: by licensing their work under LGPL,
they already allowed any relicensing into GPL, see term 3. of the
license.

Samuel
For a description of the software and to download it go to
http://www.jjb-software.com
--
________________________________

John Gardner       |  President |  ViewPlus
541.754.4002 x 220 |  www.viewplus.com
________________________________

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This message and any files transmitted with
it may be
proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual to
whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying,
disclosure, dissemination
or distribution is strictly prohibited; please notify the sender and
delete the message.
ViewPlus Technologies, Inc. accepts no liability for damage of any kind
resulting
from this email.
For a description of the software and to download it go to
http://www.jjb-software.com

For a description of the software and to download it go to
http://www.jjb-software.com

Other related posts: