Licensing Information

Open Source Used In Cisco Nexus 9000 Series 7.0(3)I5(1)
577
What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
linked with any code, not just GPL...
-a

Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
From: Devin Reade <gdr@gn...> - 2007-10-02 15:04
I would like to see it under LGPL as well. I think it is in everyone's
best interests to have as secure systems as possible, and I think tainting
it via GPL will just make it less likely that the library gets used, and
will not usually cause companies/developers to GPL the dependent code
(where it is not already GPL).
I like GPL, I use it when I can, but I don't think that it's the correct
license in this situation.
Devin
--
If it's sinful, it's more fun.

Re: [Cracklib-devel] cracklib license
From: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@re...> - 2008-01-28 16:32
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:57:31AM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote:
> > Seems like the ideal thing here would be for you and the other distro
> > maintainers to get together with Alec in a conversation and come to a
> > decision as to what licensing scheme y'all want. I haven't really done
> > much other than cleaning up the packaging and patches and a small
> > bit of
> > additional code, so whatever licensing y'all come up with is fine
> > by me.
>
> I am sympathetic. Guys, what do you reckon?
>
> What I am hearing so far is that LGPL makes sense, since it can be
> linked with any code, not just GPL...
My apologies for not chiming in in anything resembling a reasonable
timeframe.
I'd also suggest the LGPL, for the reason you noted above. Alternately,
GPLv2 with the option of using the library under a later version of the
GPL would permit applications which were released under version 3 of the
GPL to use the library, too, which would be sufficient for the packages
which are included in Fedora. FWIW, I'd personally lean toward LGPL.
In any case, I thank you both for working on sorting this out.