A specific proposal on licensing

[Aaron Wolf]

Sounds good to me. I was otherwise mostly lurking, although I will be happy
to use the software... LGPL sounds right.

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com


On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Josh Berkus <josh at agliodbs.com> wrote:

> All:
>
> I wanted to post this based on a discussion in Bradley's presentation
> yesterday on the project here at SCALE.
>
> I would like the *accounting library* to be licensed LGPL.  My reason is
> that I want to write software which embeds the library which is under a
> different open source license, such as BSD.
>
> If the library is licensed AGPL, I believe that it will fail in its
> purpose as a library because it will be exclusively reserved to people
> who want to write AGPL applications, which however you cut it is a
> minority of developers.  This is, after all, the reason why the LGPL
> exists; because more restrictive versions of GPL licenses are not
> compatible with library usage.
>
> This is distinct from the eventual NPO accounting *application*, which
> should probably be AGPL because Blackbaud.
>
> Bradley argued that "we can wait until someone comes to us and wants to
> build something to relicense".  I believe that's a huge mistake; the
> majority of potential downstream application builders will dismiss the
> project without ever contacting us if the license is wrong.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
> _______________________________________________
> npo-accounting mailing list
> npo-accounting at sfconservancy.org
> http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/npo-accounting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/npo-accounting/attachments/20140223/fa1098fd/attachment.html>