[zeromq-dev] Proposal for next stable release

Pieter Hintjens ph at imatix.com
Mon Mar 19 01:15:24 CET 2012


On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM, john skaller
<skaller at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify licence,
> E.G.
>
> Project SHALL specify software licence on Homepage and
> SHALL provide LICENCE file in top level of repository.

Perhaps. There is a solid reason for mandating xGPL, namely that forks are safe.

It's not about restriction but simply about the ability to remix a
fork (e.g. it's only thanks to the LGPL that a fork like xs is not
really toxic but rather an interesting experiment).

> The impact should not be ignored. See Apple vs. GNU:

Apple hates the GPL because of its patent clauses. That's not an
argument against the GPL, rather it's a success.

> But it's a reality that a project NEEDS to be able to change
> the licence terms.

Sure, but then they're not compliant with a fully remixable code base,
which C4 depends on.

> FWIW I view GNU licences as archaic, restrictive, counterproductive
> dinosaurs

Opinions are what they are. I'll never invest money in a non-GPL
project because it's lost to my competitors.

> Of course you don't have to agree with my view

And after 20 years of free and open source software, experimenting
with every plausible license variation, I don't. :-)

Any community may change its license with approval of every
contributor. It's not about voting. 100% of copyright owners must
approve. iMatix for one will never accept a change to ZeroMQ's license
from LGPL.

There is an entry in the FAQ that discusses this BTW, and I'd suggest
you read that.

-Pieter



More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list