[openbiblio-dev] [okfn-discuss] Permission request (license)

Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Sun Nov 3 14:28:31 UTC 2013

I support this. LGPL is somewhat more restrictive than MIT - I have had
problems in the past where companies were unhappy with an LGPL library
because they had to use static linking which was a performance/distrib hit.
(I was a contributor to a larger system and the licence wasn't my choice).

Francois, a thought. We would be delighted if you were able to post/blog
your use case (e.g. on open-bibliography) in case anyone would be able to
use it or contribute.

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Mark MacGillivray <mark at cottagelabs.com>wrote:

> I did not originally start the repo, I think it was Rufus. I am not saying
> he chose that license, but it may just have been put in there at the start
> at some point - I do not believe there is an ideology behind it being
> there. I usually use MIT or copyheart. As I did probably write most of the
> code, I would be happy to change the licence to MIT if that is helpful at
> this stage. If anyone is against this, please say so this week. (I have
> copied this mail to the old open-bibliography and openbiblio-dev lists too,
> in case anyone on there has an opinion.)
> Mark
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, François Boulogne <fboulogne at sciunto.org>wrote:
>> Le 03/11/2013 07:31, William Waites a écrit :
>> >     > give these rights and grant them to you.
>> >
>> > LGPL for a library and not BSD, right?
>> >
>> >
>> I switched to LGPL. LGPL is fine for me, and I prefer FSF's licenses.
>> --
>> François Boulogne.
>> http://www.sciunto.org
>> GPG fingerprint: 25F6 C971 4875 A6C1 EDD1  75C8 1AA7 216E 32D5 F22F

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/openbiblio-dev/attachments/20131103/733d81cd/attachment.html>

More information about the openbiblio-dev mailing list