Slashdot Mirror
LGPL or BSD-Style License for Media Codecs?
"More specifically, the nature of many
embedded systems force them to be bound
by the stringent requirements of
Section 6 the LGPL. In some cases, dynamic
linkage is not possible, ruling out
6(b), or causing the terms of the FLAC
library to come into conflict with
other proprietary libraries. In other
cases, it simply is not possible to
provide an environment, according to
6(a), where the user can re-link with a
different copy of the library.
What are my options? I could stick to
my guns, which might limit the adoption
of the format, or change the license.
I know Vorbis uses the BSD license, but
I feel strongly about modifications
that are useful for others going back
into the free code base. Perhaps there
is another middle-ground license that
could preserve the Freedom of the code
in these cases? Or maybe I am not interpreting
the verbiage of the LGPL correctly?
Can't I have my cake and eat it too?"
If the people really like your media format, they will just use it however they like, even if its patented.
Just look at MP3.
Now for a more serious answer... Why don't you just re-license it to specific companies that you want to see use it? Maybe even for a re-licensing fee, so that you can make some money off your open source software.
"And like that
you could release the current version of the library to them under a different license (a contract giving them special permission to use the current version of the library in their proprietary product).
You might even be able to make a couple bucks off it.
The library - current and future versions - would still be free.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
IANAL, This may have been said already, but if the code is all yours(or if contributors have signed over the copyright), its yours to do with as you see fit. That includes relicensing(maybe for a fee, maybe not) with companies doing embedded systems. Now what gets sticky is if you have accepted patches not written by you, then you are bound by LGPL on that code, and thus can't do that, but if all the code is yours go for it.
Initially, ogg vorbis was GPL/LGPL. They to wanted lots of people to use the format, implement it in hardware etc. The result is that sometime around Beta 3, they went over to the BSD style license.
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
I wonder if somebody at Linn reads /.!
You own the copyright. There's nothing to stop you from licensing your code under different terms to select users in
parallel with your main LGPL distro. What that license would be is a subject of normal negotiations between you and your 'clients', and could even be a custom-written license to make sure that even the changes made in order to embed are released to the public.
sudo ergo sum
Maybe you should use both licenses, like OggVorbis did.
The bundled OggVorbis utility software is released under the terms of the GNU GPL, and, the libraries and SDKs are released under the more business friendly BSD license.
Note that developers are still free to use the specification to independently write closed-source implementations of OggVorbis which are not bound by these licenses.
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
Firstly, if it's your project, you can license and re-license it however you want.
Secondly, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
It sounds to me like you basically just don't know what you want. Do you want any changes made and distributed to be shared with everyeone, or do you want peopel to be able to take it and do whatever they want with it, even if it's proprietary and closed? IT's pretty simple.
If you want something in between, write your own license terms.
Nothing is stopping you, as copyright holder, from keeping it under lgpl, but licensing it under a royalties scheme to a 3rd party commercial entity.
As somebody who has worked on a few commercially available embedded devices, I would like to comment on this:
The LGPL gives your users quite a few freedoms that they would not ordinarily have under the GPL. To take advantage of this, you will need to change your business plan so that it is based on selling or giving away support, not selling or giving away a scarce product. If the codec is superior and the source code is available, there is no reason why anybody would balk at it being LGPLed.
You should also ask yourself: who would potentially object to an LGPL code base rather than one licensed under the BSD license? My guess is that the only people who would benefit from you using the BSD license in this case are parasites who seek to sell your hard work for their own personal profit. I don't think they're the ones you want to please; your users are more important.
Just my 2c.
~wally
let them negotiate a separate license contract with you.
I'm sure that will clear up any questions, ambiguity or doubt.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
By using BSD-type license you let your code to every software house uses it as they want. It can even release a version using your "free" code using a non-free license.
Perhaps as you said LGPL will be very restrive for embedded systems, you are almost right, there's no how to recompile embedded software.
I think you have 3 choices. Fork LGPL and build your own version with a special paragraph for embedded systems. Build a special version of your library with another license.
Or you can ask every potencial "user" (the library user is the programmer/projectist) to find a way to easily update the firmware and allow the user to compile it.
I think that the second option is the best, but you can choose. :o)
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
It meets every definition of "free" that matters.
... even PHB's like me that believe in free software.
Sure, someone can take the source and do things to it without feeding it back to the community, but they then run the risk of making their implementation incompatible with everything else. They also bear the burden of maintaining their own fork of the code. Speaking as someone who is considering using flac for internal use in a commercial setting, I can tell you that these are powerful disincentives to doing silly things with the code.
The (L)GPL's virus-like qualities make it a hard sell to the PHB's
--------------- Murphy was an otpimist.
Any piece of software, in order to be forever useful, needs three essential freedoms:
1) Universal availibility of source
2) Freedom to modify that source
3) Freedom to redistribute that modified source, under any terms you (as the modifier) wish, as long as those terms do not infringe any of these three freedoms.
Lose any of these Three Freedoms, and the project is irrevocably harmed.
Using a "looser" licence may help the adoption rate, initially, but you run the signifigant risk of having one of these adopters modify the code and refuse to fold those modifications back into the main tree. Once you have done that, then the project has forked, and it's whole purpose (a common standard that is sure to work anywhere) has been compromised.
Far better that the adoption rate be slower, if by doing so it ensures universal compatibility and the retention of the project's Freedom.
Go with the LGPL. The leading "L" allows those who would use your library to remain proprietary, if they so choose (ie, the use of your library does not force the GPL on them - the freedom to choose not to adopt the GPL at project start is important too) but ensures that the library itself remains Free and useful.
Good luck!
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Why not do what Linus does with Linux and make "clarifications" (aka exceptions) that allow limited slack on linking requirements for embedded systems?
That way, you can demand all distributed modifications, while removing the barriers that are troubling you.
-Peter
If they use something else, it's quite likely to be some form of hackery that's only available with Windows and/or SDMI support.
In the end, more accessibility is likely to come to free software by taking the approach that's less "free" on the surface. Take it with a grain of salt, but in my opinion this is one of those cases where the BSD license is more "free" than the GNU license.
the legal issues are just not worth messing with. case in point - we've had to go out of our way to NOT use libreadline since its so 'hardline' on being GPL. it would be great to be able to use it, but we fear having to release our own code just due to the overzealousness of GPL when it comes to touching our own proprietary code.
I can say for sure, if you care about getting your code in shipping commercial products, consider BSD licensing. be aware that there's nothing forcing a company to pay or even ask you if they can use it, then. otoh, even when we were willing to compensate the readline author, he didn't want to consider any other licensing scheme, so we 'walked away' and had to find another lib to solve our problem.
GPL is a total mess when it comes to a commercial company that wants to ship a product without fear of being told it has to release ALL its code (even its local home-grown code).
I'm a major linux fan. I like the idea of opensource. but I also have to work for a living and that means writing software that will be owned by the company and never ever given out. there IS a balance - and GPL ain't it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Scope is an Open Source HMVC Java thingy developed by someone at the company where I work. The license he uses is BSD like and was accepted as okay by the lawyers here, so we rely on his work both OSS and internal with no issues. It also means we can invest company resources in building up the OSS project while mainting our differentiator in the company.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Dual license the project code under the LGPL and your own license, that you feel frees up the embedded system work while making sure improvement code comes back to you and can be put under the dual licensing scheme. And you might even be able to get some development funding from the embedded hardwaare people who want to use yer codec if you write the dual license to allow for licensing fees.
In any event a dual license scheme,if you can get away with it, is the way to go...but you'd have to get permission from all the developers in your project to agree to that arrangement. If its a one man project at this point...its easy to get the legalese of the matter resolved...you just have to have a long discussion with yourself and then you just have to make it clear that any code submitted to the project must be cleared for dual licensing before yuou will merge it in.
If it ends up being that there isn't much interest in the second license you create yourself you still have the option of dropping the second license from future releases and just releasing it under the LGPL again.
This way the code from your project will always be out there under the LGPL for people to use in other LGPL compatible projects...and you can negotiate special circumstances with a the second license...so that the codec can be used in situations the LGPL really wasnt designed to address, like embedded systems.
-jef
-jef
In this case, if you find it acceptable that people make changes to your code and distribute the result without sharing them, use the (new) , it is small, simple and give you the minimal legal protection against getting sued.
If not, I suggest the MPL/GPL/LGPL tripple license used by Mozilla for new code (actually the GPL part is unnecesary, but it is safest to use the text pointed to by the link, since it has been proffread by lawyers). The MPL part will make it useful for embedded and most other purposes, the (L)GPL for use in (L)GPL projects, and it still means changes to your files will be made public.
You own the code. Nothing says you have to license it under only one license. So, simple solution. License it to the public under the LGPL. If someone wants to use it in a proprietary embedded device, license it to them under a conventional license or whatever license you want. You can do that, you're the owner of the code. The two licenses won't interfere with each other, as long as you make sure to include in the proprietary license wording to the effect that this license is non-exclusive and does not affect your licensing of the code to other parties under other terms. You give the proprietary people what they're happy with without endangering the free nature of the code as licensed to everyone else.
Even if all the code in the gizmo is under the GPL, the end-user has none of the freedoms to fix/update/hack it which RMS likes to talk about.
Just look at the Tivo -- what benefit does a Tivo owner have because the kernel is GPL'ed -- has anyone rebuilt their Tivo linux kernel to fix a bug in it? I doubt it. Certainly the Tivo people benefit from having a robust, stable, flexible, royalty-free kernel. But the freedoms the GPL and LGPL theoretically give to the tivo owners seem hypothetical at best.
Continue to release your library under the LGPL. Then, create complete codumentation for the codec, complete with code or pseudocode examples, to aid in reimplementation, and release this under a license which allows for commercial development. Consider adding a clause to the license which forces readers who modify and don't redistribute to use a different name. Perhaps something similar to the MAME license would work for this.
The idea is to make reimplementation of the codec easy, while keeping your own code free. While this isn't an ideal solution, it may be a workable one.
Moreover, seeing as modified libraries may not always be able to be copied/loaded/uploaded to an embedded device even if the source, etc. for all the free libs are provided, how can that device fulfill the requirements of the GPLs (these devices cannot provide a "suitable shared library mechanism")? Source that you are free to modify but not free to use does not sound particularly free (or useful) to me.
--
Charge them a reasonable one-time relicensing fee that gives them an non-exclusive unlimited license to the code base with the exception that they may not patent any algorithms derived from the codebase. Also make sure the price is reasonable and small.
You can keep the main release LGPL, and anytime you take on a new code contributor ask them to agree to a release saying that FLAC may be privately relicensed upon those specific terms above and that all proceeds will go towards the development of FLAC.
So you can eat your cake and have it too. And if the company comes back wanting a license to a more recent version of the code- which has been evolving with LGPL contributions, then they can pay another one-time relicensing fee (a form of recurring funding if development keeps up)
Now this probably wont get you as wide distribution as a BSD license, because of the small hassle, but its the next best thing if you want to keep your copyleft. And your guaranteed to get compensated by anyone who wants to develop FLAC, either with LGPL code or hard cash.
However, there is an elegant solution. The solution, which I discovered by using some ThreadX code, is to implement each function in a separate file. That way you only link in the functions you need on a function by function basis! The result for ThreadX is an extremely configurable kernel with very lean code size.
Therefore, I think you should keep the library licensed as LGPL and separate all of the functions into individual source files. As you guys know the LGPL only governs the library not any of the files that use the library like GPL. So if you or anyone else (embedded developers too) makes changes to the library they are required to let everyone else know about it. This has nothing to do with the application. In this case the embedded developers seem to want the BSD license so they can only put in what they need of the code, or in a worst case scenario they may want to rape and pillage the code and not give back to the community.
In summary, by keeping the code licensed under LGPL and separating your files out function by function your library will be lean for embedded developers, keep developers both commercial and non-commercial contributing to your code and prevent parasitic companies from making money off of your hard work without giving back a thing.
As an additional guide here are some links regarding the license models:
Enjoy.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
A lot of interesting replies, and since this is going to take me some time to articulate clearly there'll be more by the time I'm done.
The BSD style license is a good license because it allows the end user a good deal of flexibility.
The GPL is a good license because it protects the code base from proprietary obfuscation.
The BSD may be bad because it does not force the end user to report back to the original author, though it does not forbid this. My experience in working with BSD style licensing is that MOST changes find their way back to the developer.
The GPL may be bad because it does not take into account the reliality of the commercial market. It simply prohibits the end user from making those changes that they may require to make their product a commercial success.
Having said all that, my personal choice has always been to make my code PUBLIC DOMAIN if I want it freely available, otherwise I retain FULL copyright.
Afterall, if freedom is what you want then you MUST allow freedom. I do not feel that it is legitimate to say that something is free if you want to place restrictions on its use.
If you want to retain COMPLETE control then look at some sort of realistic license that fits your business model. Otherwise, I'd say, if you want your code to be FREE then make it FREE, without restriction of any sort.
Which is probably the big advantage of the BSD style license.
Later . . . . . . WebBug
Although it would be nice, this is probably not going to be as easy as you suggest.
The problem is that FLAC is an open source project hosted on SourceForge. As such, it is probably very likely that the project owner has accepted code from various contributors. This means that unless these contributors have explicitly granted him the copyright ownership of their code, he is in no position to re-license it.
At this point, he has two options:
1 - Replace all contributed code with his own; and do so without infringing on the anyone's copyright.
2 - Get everyone who contributed to grant him copyright ownership. Which, depending on how many people contributed, can be quite difficult.
I've always liked this idea for making money from Free software. You basically charge only those people who have no intention of giving back to the community. Unfortunately, unless you have planned ahead, it can be pretty difficult to pull off.
Good luck, buddy.
Yeah, and this is what the Ogg project does. Their code is released under a BSD license, but the spec is in the public domain (though they reserve the right to say which systems conform to the spec, which is a very vice decision).
Then, what license you use for the your own software is of minor importance. But since the Ogg project made a decision to go BSD after thinking about it long and well, and your situation seems to be very similar to theirs, I guess it is a good choice.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
That's not to say that the lgpl doesn't have its problems too. There's a lot of grey area for things like static linking versus dynamic, for example. Back when I was working at the Evil Satellite company, about the only way to get the project to run, due to different library levels on all the developer's workstations, was to do static linking. Of course, they were also looking at using GNU Gettext (A GPLed project) for their translation when I left, too...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The GCC project has gone through this exact problem with several of their libraries (libgcc, libgcj), and the solution they settled on is the GPL with an exception that using the library doesn't make the main program subject to the requirements of the GPL. Thus the libraries can be statically linked into proprietary embedded systems, but all modifications still have to be released.
Please, pardon me if I have misunderstood that part of your statement, but I just have to put in my 0,02 Euros. You said:
Think for a moment about the motivation of a business for asking the developer of a GPL'd software product to change the license. The reason traditional businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) encourage independent developers to choose the BSD license is that traditional businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) can then integrate the independent developer's code into a closed-source commercial product without paying a licensing fee or even contributing to the free source code base in good faith.
If companies were willing to release the source code of the software system into which the GPL'd code was integrated, no separate licensing arrangement would be necessary and no licensing fee would be due. So, you see, for companies that support free software, the GPL is at least as "business friendly" as the BSD license; in fact, for those companies, the GPL is more business-friendly than the BSD license because it (theoretically) prevents unscrupulous competitors from appropriating the software product it protects.
The authors of the GPL sought to increase the quantity and quality of GPL'd software, as well as to guarantee the continued availability of source code for a particular software product -- and this seems to be what FLAC's author wants, too. I think tswinzing's post offers excellent advice: charge closed-source shops for their closed-source licenses. A switch to a BSD license would take away the competitive advantage that those companies who may already be willing to release the rest of the system under a GPL-compatible license now enjoy. When seen in that light, changing the license to BSD would subvert the author's goal of contributing to increasing the availability of free software and to the free software community's long-term goal of making all hardware interfaces open.
A very insightful man once warned us of how an unscrupulous company could take advantage of a community of people who believe in sharing by simply asking for a handout. We must remain vigilant, because that danger still exists. I hope, dearly, that the author of FLAC will stick to his guns even in the face of these most persuasive beggars.
I think people might have problems with LGPL software due to the changes that may be required for various embedded operating systems. Take a look at zlib for how to make a library embedded friendly. In zLib, all of the OS related code is in a single file which makes porting very easy. Remember, in embedded systems, functions like malloc and printf might not be available.
I worked on a project where I had to change the boot loader to use zLib so the image would fit into the flash memory. zLib was very simple to use due to the excellent abstraction layer. I had *no* operating system to rely on.
Now zLib is under a BSD-style license instead of LGPL. For a LGPL library to work, just make the OS wrapper files BSD but the core LGPL. If it is written properly, anyone embedding the code should only have to change the OS wrappers, or if any changes are made to the core they would not reveal the internal workings of their product (unless they want to add some feature they want to remain proprietary to the core).
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
What do people think of the license for VP3. It has some weird provisions about derived software always being compatible with the original codec and some weird patent language.
VP3 is a codec that will be supported by Realplayer and Quicktime, the source was released a few months back.
A key question is exactly how you deal with your codec. If you have a definitive external specification for the codec, so that your code is just a reference implementation, I'd recommend a BSD-style license. In that case, any implementation of the code must comply with the specification. That limits the ability of companies to create proprietary extensions and damage users of the free version, so a permissive license makes sense. I'd only go to a LGPL-type license if the code is the only specification for the codec.
This is what I've done for the handful of software that I've released. All of my programs are associated with papers that describe the function of the program in enough detail that a motivated, competent programmer could re-implement them without looking at my code. Since anyone could rewrite them from scratch and avoid any license I put on the code, I don't see a whole lot of point in putting on a restrictive licence in the first place.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
It's easy. As the copyright owner, you may issue other licences that are outside the LGPL. How about this:
Company A wants a licence but doesn't want the hassle of the LGPL. Company A pays you $X for the right to use the codec in an embedded system, but you insert a clause in their licence that states that they may not change the codec, and if they do, they must release the changes to the codec (but not the whole of their work), or they must send the changes to you for possible inclusion in the LGPL version, releasing their copyright on those changes in the process.
This would mean:
1) You would get paid for their non-LGPL use of your property.
2) They would get the opportunity to use the codec in a non-free device, if they don't modify the codec.
3) If they modify the codec, the community would get the changes back in a free manner.
4) You could provide a list of licencees in the codec documentation, as in, "These people have the right to use the codec in a non-free way." This eliminates charges of stealing LGPL code (which has popped on on Slashdot in the past), and provides a little good advertising for the company as a good-faith player who went out of their way to do things right. As a proponent of free software, that might make *ME* more likely to buy their product to reward their good behavior.
5) If you don't want the money on some strange principle, you could either donate it to some worthy cause, or just issue the licences for free.
The key here isn't the money, it's the license. Just because you've issued the software under an open license doesn't mean you can't issue the software again under a closed license, because even under the LGPL, YOU remain the copyright holder, and you may use or reuse the copyright in any way you choose.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
I'd recommend this over the BSD license because it removes the opportinity for certain crooked companies to "embrace and extend" your CODEC. You still retain control of the CODEC design.
Another possibility you may want to explore, is having two licenses: GPL for free download, and closed-source proprietary for closed-source, commercial projects. Trolltech does this and they're apparently quite successful.
Just my two cents.
Finding God in a Dog
IANAL, but I keep re-reading your post, then re-reading the license, and I don't see a problem. The "Lesser" GPL was designed to allow combining free software with proprietary software. All the gyrations in point 5 regarding compiling vs. linking and uses vs. derives are just technical ways of keeping the free software distinct and free. Point 6 was written for situations such as yours. Since you expressed the desire to keep FLAC free, go for 6c or 6d and you should be home free.
>reason traditional businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) encourage
>independent developers to choose the BSD license is that traditional
>businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) can then integrate the
>independent developer's code into a closed-source commercial product
>without paying a licensing fee or even contributing to the free source
>code base in good faith.
Huh? Go look at the changelogs, particularly the number from apple, and try saying that again. It just wouldn't make economic sense for apple to not return the bugfixes--they then have to separately maintain their base.
hawk
If these unnamed businesses that find even the LGPL onerous are legitimate, they should have no problem paying you serious money to switch to the new BSD terms. They support the proprietary model, and you've worked hard on this project.
If they do not pay, then, your sticking with LGPL will help the development of the core free version (although perhaps hindering proprietary forks) by ensuring that future enhancements to libFLAC are incorporated, which is particularly important in the case of something that is likely to be incrementally improved by tinkering or where standardization and interoperability may be affect adoption.
Although I personally prefer LGPL'ed libraries, I would be remiss in not mentioning that, by similar argument, you might could go further and set up a "FLAC consortium" that companies would pay a small amount of money to in order go get the right to use libFLAC under something like LGPL (but which would not conflict with the requirement to pay dues).
Several of the posts here imply that Josh's intent is to find a way to sell FLAC to vendors for use in embedded systems. Those posts suggest a mix of open-source and fee-based licensing, and seem to view the embedded system vendors as folks who should essentially be paying a tax to subsidize development.
/. thread, and it has raised some key issues.
But my take on the original question is quite different. I believe that Josh's goal is to make this software available for free, to all, including embedded system vendors; but he sees(correctly) that such vendors generally have a hard time using open source components, because of the nature of how their systems are sold, distributed, and supported. It's not necessarily practical or reasonable to compel a hardware vendor to provide the means for recompilation/relinking etc. -- even though all parties may feel that an open-source component is the best technical solution, and that using it would help to establish good industry-wide standards. (This is also true of device drivers and other components where, even if the vendors don't conform 100% to open source requirements, a watered-down standarization is still far better than if each vendor rolls his own solution. Many 'benign' proprietary software vendors would love to use open source tools and components in a non-exploiting way, i.e. as a way to improve industry-wide interoperability and standardization -- as opposed to 'evil' vendors who would seek to put a private label on open source components and sell the result -- but of course even with good intents this can't be done, since a software vendor is committing the sin of trying to get paid for its R&D costs. But that's another argument.)
There are many good suggestions here. I think this is an extremely interesting
The bottom line for me is a basic problem with many open source licenses: Licensing restrictions often prevent a developer from making software available to folks who common sense says should be able to use it; and they often prevent a product vendor from incorporating software in ways that common sense says is consistent with the open source philosophy and would improve the overall quality of products and range of choices available to end-users.
Thanks to all who have made thoughtful posts here.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
What are my options? I could stick to my guns, which might limit the adoption of the format, or change the license.
If you own the copyright on the codec and on your software, you can release it under the LGPL and simultaneously license it for use in embedded projects.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I don't really see you have a problem with LGPL in this case. But if you do you might consider the Mozilla Public License which simply states that all changes to files within the covered code must be made public. It has no restrictions on linking with any such files or libraries built on them that I am aware of. Also a dual LGPL/MPL license is fairly common. BSD on the other hand provides no production at all for continued software freedom.
GPL is often not a realistic option, even for companies that want to support open source. A lot of commercial products contain software licensed from multiple parties. Even if a company wants to GPL its code, they may not be able to because it's linked against proprietary code licensed from another party.
To link GNU GPL 2 licensed code to proprietary code in an embedded environment, use a pair of pipes and a simple filesystem. The GPL requires only that everything linked into one "executable" be GPL compatible, and if you have all your proprietary stuff isolated in one area of flash memory and all the GPL software in another (perhaps using some sort of simple filesystem), and you limit communication between GPL code and proprietary code to a pair of pipes, you can obey the GPL.
It becomes even easier with the GNU Lesser GPL 2.1, as LGPL code such as FLAC can run in-process with proprietary code, but you still have to provide a method to relink and reflash.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It does not use LGPL. The license file in both the libogg and libvorbis distributions, as well as the top 20 lines of every source file clearly state that it is licensed under the BSD license.
Not only that, but I have several contacts at EA and have met personally with many of the audio people there and they are all aware of this to the best of my knowledge.
One of the primary motivators for this decision was EA asking for an easier license.
Please contact me directly or give me the info to talk to your lawyer. I can easily straighten this out.
Also known as "GPL plus Library Exception", where the "exception" is:
The effect is that it gets rid of the static linking constraint of LGPL, but it's still a CopyLeft license so that it can't be proprietized.
This is used in the GNU runtimes for Java (libgcj, classpath, classpathx, etc) as well as GUILE, an embedded Scheme interpreter.
It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If I decide to incorporate a GPL product into an internal effort, I've unilaterally made the decision for all other members of my company when they wish to adopt my product. They have no real choice but to use the GPL as well.
C//
While you are quite right about the situation, that really emphasizes my point: adopting a BSD-style piece of software doesn't require me to consult with a corportate attorney, and if no "acceptible use policy" is present, no problem.
GPL introduces a great deal of difficulty for commercial workers.
C//