> As I said yesterday, the library code should be distributed under a
> non-viral license. That means LGPL at the very least, up to BSD minus
> the advertisement clause at the most ideal. Remember that a lot of
> players are not open source, but we still want them to adopt this
> protocol. It's the lesser of two evils, right?
Usually, i'm an advocate of GPL or LGPL, but in this particular case i see
the advantages of the BSD minus advertising or Artistic license.
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> Again, I'm not sure why you're so hot to license the client libraries. If
> the stated goal is to create a standard that will completly replace CDDB
> in the long run then lowering the bar for all software developers free or
> commercial should be a consideration. Given that, I'm sure why the client
> library needs to be protected by a license. You want to give it away and
> hope it wanders as far and wide as possible.
>
> The client library needs to be completly free of a license; public domain.
The BSD license allows any use of the software except that you keep the
copyright for your code. Many reference libraries use this license for
the reason you pointed out.
Cheers,
Jochen