On Monday 15 November 2010 23:38:52 Ken Conley wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Herman Bruyninckx > > wrote: > > There is absolutely no difference between LGPL and GPL in the context in > > which I have made my remark: the concept of "derivative code" is exactly > > the same for both :-) (Both licenses just differ in what they allow you > > to do with derived work.) > > > > Anyway, I am not making any legal stance at all, except that I am trying > > to make people _aware_ of the existence of such grey zones. There is no > > final answer to that 'grey zone' issue, because all legislative systems > > (as far as I am aware) will leave it to a judge to decide about such > > cases. Since I am very anxious to keep Orocos (and also ROS) > > industry-ready, we (Orocos, ROS) should try to avoid any grey zones, > > whenever possible, even if it is a grey zone between two free software > > licenses: I would not be surprised _at all_ to see a malafide lawyer > > attack ROS and Orocos for mutual license violations if that would be a > > appropriate strategy for a ROS/Orocos enemy... > > > > My suggestion would be to dual license this kind of "ROS-Orocos" bridge > > code, with LGPL and BSD the obvious license choices. > > I downloaded the "rtt examples" from the Orocos web site [1]. Within > that tarball, I can find no license, except for a GNU FDL license > relating to an XML document. As example/tutorial code is documentation > of intended use, it seems counter to the LGPL to transfer an LGPL > license to it. If that is the intent, then the example code should > contain explicit licenses within the source code. Personally, I think > it would be a shame to expect developers to avoid tutorials just > because they are working on non-GPL/LGPL code. > All example code I wrote is in the public domain, being it on the wiki or in tar.gz files. Even code I used for training courses. If people want an explicit license, I can tag it BSD or whatever the lawyers of the community feel good with. Peter