Re: m4ri move to LGPL?

[Martin Albrecht]

Hi Mate,

it's not my decision but the collective decision of all copyright holders.

I'm forwarding this to the M4RI development list, let's see what people think.
I'm happy with LGPL FWIW.

Cheers,
Martin

On Friday 14 Mar 2014 15:58:33 you wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I'm considering releasing the ANF converter system I have. However, your
> M4RI is GPLv2 licensed. Since it's a library, wouldn't it make more
> sense to release it as LGPLv2? It would allow me to release anfconv as
> MIT-licensed. Otherwise, the link to M4RI would make it GPL. This also
> partially goes for CryptoMiniSat, which is LGPL licensed, but due to
> link to M4RI, it's GPL. Would you consider moving to LGPL for M4RI?
>
> Cheers and thanks for M4RI,
>
> Mate

[Carlo Wood]

While normally RMS is a bit over the top after my taste,
I agree with him on the subject
of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

M4RI is a very unique and specialized library. It should
be, and is, free for educational purposes (read: people
without money, and not seeking to make money with the
library). I don't see a reason to allow companies that
want to make money to freely use our code (using the word
'our' here freely, not that I did THAT much work on m4ri).

In general I'm (even) against the MIT-license when it is
even remotely possible to make money with the software.
A good example of why it kills, imho, is the 'opensim'
project, which has around 1.5 really active developers
for the public 'core' and a gazillion (commercial) grids
that use the software, all of which have their own coders
reinventing the wheel in solitude in an attempt to give
their virtual world grid an edge over the competition:
if it works here while others just crash, then we'll get
more users then them and thus more money...
I realize that they could have done that too when their
source code was GPL; it should have been the Affero GPL
in that case.

Nevertheless, the knowledge that a transition from GPL to
LPGL is "needed" in order to allow some other project to
be released under the MIT-license instead of plain GPL
isn't really a motivation for me to agree either.

--
Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com>

[Bill Hart]

I believe that there is no actual code of mine in M4RI, since I think you rewrote it. But if any exists, you have my permission to license it BSD or LGPL, any version.

We have the same issue with flint at present. But we haven't been able to contact all the authors.

Bill.

[Tom Boothby]

I maintain my commitment to permissive licenses. I support moving to
a modified BSD license.

[Martin Albrecht]

Just to clarify: we were asked to consider to move to LGPL not BSD.

-- sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "M4RI Development" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to m4ri-devel+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to m4ri-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/m4ri-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Boothby]

Right. Answering the question asked. I support a move to LGPL.

Generally, the more permissive (IMO) the better.

> To post to this group, send email to m4ri-...@googlegroups.com.

[Clement Pernet]

Hi,

I'm fine with moving to LGPL.

Clément

[William Alumbaugh]

I would prefer if this software stayed GPL, as its stronger copyleft protections serve to give Sage and other open source software an advantage over proprietary software.   Furthermore, if proprietary software can use the library, then free mathematics software will lose an advantage, exclusive access to this library.