GPL/LGPL/MPL is a bit odd (why have GPL at all, it's just a more restrictive LGPL but otherwise the same...?) but fine with me.
If nothing else, it saves time debating with people who don't know the difference (or who _think_ they know the difference). If someone asks if they can get it under GPL, we can simply say "yes" and get on with things.
/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)
Previous text:
2002-10-01 20:09: Subject: Re: Pike C Module documentation
I take it you have no objections on donating the module to Pike, and releasing it under LGPL and MPL, then?
All modules in pexts are GPL. I see no objections to add them to mainstream pike :)
And all of Pike is released under GPL, LGPL *and* MPL, which also means that unless donated code is bound by GPL and the owner does not hold the copyrights for the code, we can not accept it into Pike, the way I understand it (since the GPL does not mandate anyone to release the same code under a different license besides the GPL, unless this person also holds the full rights to do as he wants with the code).
(As far as I could see, the bzip2 glue was written by grendel and/or david, and if both agree about donating it to Pike we have no problem there, of course.)
I see no problem in adding LGPL/MPL rights to pexts modules and putting them in Pike. I would object against it if it was purely GPL however :-)
GPL/LGPL/MPL is a bit odd (why have GPL at all, it's just a more restrictive LGPL but otherwise the same...?) but fine with me.
/ David Hedbor (I live in interesting times)