Re: [Monotone-devel] Several questions

[Daniel Silverstone]

On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 06:54, graydon hoare wrote:
> > However if this library exists I hope it will be licensed under the
> > LGPL to allow buisness to take a more serious interest in monotone.
> well, a library is linking, and monotone is currently GPL, so.. at
> this point the answer would clearly be "no" to that, unless you do it
> as a subprocess-on-a-pipe sort of library, which isn't always so bad.

Subprocess on a pipe isn't always the easiest of things to code
portably, and certainly isn't as efficient as being able to link to the
library.

> personally I don't mind releasing future monotones under LGPL, either
> way. I hadn't really considered it before. we'd need a consensus from
> the 3-4 other people who have contributed patches so far, but I doubt
> they'd mind. anyone object?

Making it LGPL would be sensible in my book.

I release all my software under a slightly derestricted MIT-like
licence, but that's my personal preferences.

I have a couple of desires which I'd like to see realised in monotone,
for which having a library break-out would be useful. Once I have my
thoughts in order, I'll post them up.

D.

-- 
Daniel Silverstone                       http://www.digital-scurf.org/
Hostmaster, Webmaster, and Chief Code Wibbler: Digital-Scurf Unlimited
GPG Public key available from keyring.debian.org       KeyId: 20687895