[rrd-developers] Re: C API

[Peter Stamfest]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Lee Thompson wrote:

> Would you consider an LGPL license terms for a 'C'
> API?

It would probably be hard to get the consent of all contributors for this 
(relicensing the _API_ won't be enough, as it is useless without the 
implementation, AFAICT). _And_ some of the code might already be derived 
work from other GPLed software linked with librrd. But I think it would be 
a good idea to get some parts of librrd under a more liberal license: The 
update part. And it should be able to put that part into its own library, 
for 3rd parties to use. That would make the RRD format more available to 
commercial tools. The presentation, I think, should remain under the GPL. 
For my changes to the API/code _in that area_ (update) I'm willing to 
change the license.

You could, of course, reimplement the entire RRD tool, but then you should 
better not look too close at the existing source, as in some countries 
this might get in conflict with copyright law.

BTW, Tobi, was there any discussion about the FLOSS exception in the 
license? I have only just now stumbled across it here

http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker/webtools/rrdtool-trac/browser/branches/1.2/program/COPYRIGHT?rev=728

I have to think about this, but that should not have happened 
without a discussion with other contributors.

peter

--
Unsubscribe mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Help        mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=help
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-developers
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi