[Flac-dev] Latest Flac license thinking?
PaulProteus at technologist.com
Tue Jan 15 19:48:04 PST 2002
I've always wondered, why can't a simple LGPL/GPL double-license do the
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:27:42PM -0500, Woodrow Stool wrote:
> > A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a
> > question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes.
> > Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac?
> If the concerns are about embedded systems, I recommend adding an exception
> to the license (a carefully worded one, written with the assistance of
> legal-types) rather than changing to a BSD-style license.
> Have you asked the FSF about their thoughts on the LGPL's application to
> embedded systems? As far as I know, the LGPL authors have nothing
> specifically against the use of free software in embedded systems, and they
> might have useful input on the subject. licensing at gnu.org would be, I
> think, the right place to ask, if you haven't already.
In Pocatello, Idaho, a law passed in 1912 provided that "The carrying
of concealed weapons is forbidden, unless same are exhibited to public view."
More information about the Flac-dev