> > This is precisely the kind of situation the LGPL is designed for. We can
> > provide a .so and a .dll, both under the LGPL. Remember that this just
> > applies to the interface code that we provide out of the goodness of our
> > hearts. People who want a stand-alone, proprietary binary are welcome to
> > implement the interface themselves.
>
> I *really* don't think the LGPL will work for us.
>
> I investigated it quite a bit for my mod_dav module. It would require
> that people ship their code as open source or in a linkable form. I
> seriously doubt people want to bother with shipping a linkable form so
> that people can update the LGPL'd library and relink(!).
We're talking dynamic libraries (.so and .dll) here -- no need for
relinking on the user's part. Also, we're talking about interface *code*
not interface *protocol*. If people aren't happy with requiring a .so or a
.dll, they are welocome to write their own parser for the protocol.
> The library(ies) should be under a BSD-ish license to garner the widest
> audience.
Garnering the widest audience is an important goal, but certainly not the
only one.
> > What about trademarks, though?
> As I've mentioned before, I'd vote for CDIN :-)
No doubt.
> > Trademarks are based on first commercial use.
This is the problem. We want to exclude someone from having any commercial
use of a term we invent to apply to a free format.
Mike