[rrd-developers] Re: C API
peter at stamfest.at
Fri Feb 10 17:41:48 MET 2006
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Granting an LGPL license to rrdtool would make it very simple to
> integrate rrdtool with many non GPL tools. My intent with
> publishing rrdtool under the GPL was
Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating the LGPL! Not at all! Lee Thompson
aksed about it. All I said is that everybody who contributed some code
would have to agree with that move, and I think this obviously is unlikely
for several reasons:
* You don't want it
* I don't want it
What I said in my last mail was that _I_ would be willing to release _my_
changes to the _update_ code (the initial multi-thread stuff) to a more
liberal license, _but nothing else_ (unless I'm proven that it would be a
> a) Make sure that any modifications to rrdtool will be available
> under the same liberal license as rrdtool as they are published.
> b) Promote free Software. Since the GPL gives people who want to
> access rrdtool from closed-source applications some heavy
> thinking (it can be done using the cli and also the scripting
> apis and I would not even object to shared library access as
> long as the tool itself does not do any graphing and logging
> stuff itself.)
Ahh, this is exactly what I had in mind: let them update an RRD, but
graphing and more elaborate stuff should be out of reach for closed
source. And I'm not at all sure about fetch or info.
> I have no interest in preventing other free software from using
> rrdtool and if something like php has a license that gives people a
> headache over license incompatibility, then I see no gain in this
> hence I clarified the situation adding the FLOSS exception. I don't
> see it interfearing with the spirit of the GPL (as you can see from
> looking at the GPLv3 draft). As for the discussion, on the list
> that I missed and I am sorry for this (since most of the work on
> rrdtool seems to stay with me the 'developer-community' tends to slip
> my minde every now and then).
The problem I see with the undiscussed change is that I should now check
if any of the "compatible" licenses really are compatible in my sense of
how the GPL itself should work. I also always have problems with releases
under the GPL "choose the version yourself" terms, as you never know what
comes out of it. That said, maybe I get around to think about the
implications of your changes.
One more thing: I do see _you_ as the Mr RRD, so your thoughts about the
licensing matter the most, but such moves should really be discussed
before they are made.
> As for the LGPLing rrdtool ...
> Intent a) would still be valid. Intent b) would be weakened, since
> LGPL is much easier on the 'consience' and I don't actualy think it
> is necessary to make it easy to use rrdtool in closed source
> software while I spend all that time on it giving it away for free.
> But feel free to make a case for LGPL ...
> The thought about the 'rrd' format is interesting, but I am not
> sure the current state is something we should promote all that much
> since it is platform dependent and quite rigid regarding
True, but isn't the same true for many other file formats that are far
more "successful"? (Waving hands here, as I'm not an expert on file
formats...), also: I see most of the power in the consolidation feature,
not the file format, and that is also something done during update time...
Unsubscribe mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Help mailto:rrd-developers-request at list.ee.ethz.ch?subject=help
More information about the rrd-developers