PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines

Maurizio De Cecco maurizio at
Wed May 17 08:55:43 PDT 2000

Daniel Quinlan <quinlan at> writes:

> Maurizio De Cecco <maurizio at> writes:
> > The standard define the API, while the licence cover the
> > implementation, right ?
> Yes, but we should not define an API for which there isn't any free
> software.


And i know the differences and the reason behind GPL and LGPL.

> Requiring the use of a GPL library would mean that commercial vendors
> wouldn't use that part of the standard, which defeats part of the
> purpose of having a standard base system.

I agree, but on the other side we should be carefull to don't revert
the effect.

My point is: suppose i implement a system where *all* the libraries
are GPL, and not LGPL, would that implementation be non standard
compliant *because* of the licence ?

There is a difference between be sure that a standard API is
implemented by at list one non-gpl open source libraries, and
requiring in the standard that all the compliant implementation are
non GPL.

And also if this is not the intended meaning, the wording should
be studied very carefully to avoid this interpretation.

Otherwise we are opening an enormous can of worms :->


Maurizio De Cecco

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list