On Monday 22 March 2004 18:40, David Matthews wrote:
On the other hand, GPL is too strong because it would appear to make it impossible for a company to develop software and distribute it with Poly/ML in such a way that they could retain their code as closed source. It's possible that the "Lesser GPL" that is used for libraries might be acceptable.
I had a look at these licenses earlier - and certainly GPL seems too restrictive for this.
I've read the relevant parts of the LGPL, and can make head nor tail of how it could or could not be applied, and still allow closed source development in this context.
If the LGPL isn't appropriate, then perhaps one alternative would be a dual license in the same vein as Trolltech with Qt: one license for closed source programs, the other GPL.
Regards, Martin