Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > > The only place we've this Corba 'linking' problem is with 3th party UI's, isn't it? > > There might be some other cases, but I think 3rd part UI's would be the most > important. Regardless of whether we choose the LGPL or GPL, we can always make a modification that explicitly permits CORBA linking or any other kind of linking. That's something we should keep in mind. > Before we start going into license (in)compatibilities, let's start by deciding > what kind of things we want to prevent. We know we don't want people to take our > code and make it proprietary. That leaves us with GPL and LGPL. Now is there any > kind of "linking" we want to prevent? If not, then we can almost LGPL > everything. If not, we need to see what needs to be GPL and what needs to be > LGPL. Jarl has a good point in that we may want to prevent one of the layers from being substituted with a proprietary program. This may be more of an advocacy issue than a security issue, since, as Jean-Marc stated, an Open Source layer can be just as malicious. On the other hand, there may be some "control" issues here. Let's pretend that Micro$oft (perhaps we are having some delusions of grandure) wants to "Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish" Piper. It could do so by creating its own BL (or another layer) that uses a SLIGHTLY different protocol that only works with their UI. They've done this before: Look at how many Web pages work only with IE. But, if we are to make everything GPL, and say that CORBA linking from a non GPL'd layer is illegal for DL <-> BL <-> PL linking, then it has to be illegal for UIL <-> DL linking too. It's a tough choice. We (at least Jarl and I) want the former to be illegal but the latter to not be. Jeff -- J.W. Bizzaro jeff at bioinformatics.org Director, Bioinformatics.org: The Open Lab http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. --