Re: [DotGNU]Changing pnetlib license to LGPL

[Rhys Weatherley]

BioChem333 wrote:

> You are right, in that changes to the implementation of the library must
> be redistributed, but this leaves open the ability to declare library
> routines as native, and implement them outside of the library.

OK, I get where you are coming from now.  You will note
from the pnet FAQ that this is precisely why I chose to
use GPL+linking exception in the first place.  And it is
still very important that we prevent pnetlib from being
hijacked in this manner.

Here are the reasons why I believe that this is no longer
an issue:

1. Any proprietry vendor that was thinking of doing this
   would probably start with Mono's C# library and not ours.
2. Because we control the CVS repository, we can be vigilant
   against the core code being hijacked by contributors.
3. Pnetlib has a very well-defined set of functionality,
   which is not conducive to embrace and extend once it
   has reached feature-complete.
4. Pnet's runtime engine, as the primary user of pnetlib,
   will always be GPL or GPL-compatible Free Software.

My main concern now is that we use a predictable license
that is well understood by the community.  There are as
many variants of GPL+linking exception as there are projects
that use it.  LGPL will give us a clearer position.

Note: this only applies to the low-level pnetlib libraries.
It won't apply to dotgnu-contrib, or any other DotGNU-specific
libraries that we may end up building.  We will deal with
the licenses on those libraries as a separate issue.

I'd like to hear from the primary pnetlib contributors
what they think of this proposal.  Peter?  Gopal?  Stephen?
Charlie?  etc?

Cheers,

Rhys.