|
FAST Protocol
< Previous Next >
Re: FAST C++ open-source contribution
Dimitry London / Morgan Stanley <>
25 Mar 2008 9:07AM ET Hi, Joakim,
thanks for the feedback, I will certainly think about your recommendations. Note, however, since our software uses libxml and boost, we might be bound to at least LGPL already (although boost might be excluded from the final implementation as only its templatized boost::smart_ptr code is used).
The licensing issue is becoming much more complicated that the actual implementation :)
Cheers,
Dimitry
> Hi Dimitry,
>
> I think it is a great initiative, but I would also point out that if you
> go the path of GPL (or even LGPL) you will exclude many commercial
> organizations from contributing at all, as the GPL license is
> unacceptable for many commercial projects (oh, the irony).
>
> Thus, this becomes somewhat counterproductive, as organizations that
> might be interested in contributing to the project would rule out the
> use of your software solely based on the license agreement and would
> thus be excluded.
>
> I would try to find an OSI approved license that requires foldback but
> does not require open sourcing of the whole application (C++ templates
> or not)... Otherwise perhaps you should roll your own based on one of
> the really free licenses (like BSD), but just add a clause requiring
> foldback of changes, then it would be useful for a much larger
> audience...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joakim
>
> > Everyone, thanks very much for detailed feedback. I see that my post
> > generated quite a discussion...
> >
> > Rolf is absolutely correct, though - whatever license we will choose
> > we would like to preserve that requirement that the future
> > contributions are available in the source code form. So, it looks that
> > the only choice is between GPL and LGPL although I admit that will
> > have to do more research.
> >
> > Dimitry
Re: FAST C++ open-source contribution
Dimitry London / Morgan Stanley 25 Mar 2008 9:07AM ET
|
