[14443] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
crypto licence
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ian Grigg)
Thu Oct 2 17:07:56 2003
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:53:25 -0400
From: Ian Grigg <iang@systemics.com>
Reply-To: iang@systemics.com
To: Jill Ramonsky <Jill.Ramonsky@aculab.com>
Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@sliepen.eu.org>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
Guus Sliepen wrote:
> > Some advice on licensing wouldn't go amiss either. (GPL? ... LGPL? ...
> > something else?)
>
> I'd say LGPL or BSD, without any funny clauses.
With crypto code, we have taken the view that it
should BSD 2 clause. The reason for this is that
crypto code has enough other baggage, and corporates
are often the prime users. These users are often
scared very easily by complex licences.
We'd tended to vacilate somewhat with applications,
between various Mozilla/Sun community models, but
with the underlying crypto, always as free as possible.
If you wanted to be in the GPL community, then LGPL.
GPL itself will infect any apps, so unless you have
a really great belief that you want those users and
no others, stick to LGPL.
Mind you, those have been our experiences. It's
quite plausible that we'd have attracted a bigger
developer base simply by going GPL.
iang
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
