[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.

Todd Berman tberman@off.net
Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:59:47 -0400

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:00 +0200, Mike Krueger wrote:
> Hi
> I don't know if it is possible - you could dual-license the new code 
> GPL/MIT X11, but I think that's difficult to manage because MonoDevelop 
> code needs to link to GPLed code somewhere ... but for independend 
> libraries I don't see a problem.

My understanding, and this could be flawed, is that we can insert MIT
X11 licensed code into a GPLed product without any issues, and it will
retain its MIT X11 license. Obviously the existing GPLed code from
SharpDevelop would stay GPLed, no one is disputing that.

I am not sure if this would mean that MonoDevelop would then be released
under a dual licensing scheme with GPL and MIT X11 or not. Someone will
need to enlighten me on that specifically.

As for linking with GPLed libraries, I am not sure we actually do that,
all the code from mono/gtk-sharp is MIT X11/LGPL and gtk+/gnome itself
are LGPL as well.


> Regards
> Mike
> >Hello,
> >
> >	Until now, the licensing situation for MonoDevelop has been a bit up in
> >the air. All of the code that originated from SharpDevelop is licensed
> >under the GPL. However, the licensing the various existing contributors
> >to MonoDevelop itself have been using is kind of up in the air.
> >
> >I am going to be explicitly using the MIT X11 license on all new code
> >that I write for MonoDevelop, and would like some input from various
> >contributors/users about mandating the MIT X11 for new code inclusion.
> >What I would like to see is everyone relicense all their code inside MD,
> >both future contributions and past contributions, to MIT X11. However, I
> >would like to get some discussion going about requiring/making this
> >change.
> >
> >--Todd
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Monodevelop-list mailing list
> >Monodevelop-list@lists.ximian.com
> >http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/monodevelop-list
> >
> >
> >  
> >