Tim,
> It occurs to me that specifically for SLA, using GPL rather than LGPL is
> warranted since that means commercial companies will not want to use the
> "free" version since they would have to GPL their applications, providing
> a reason for them to pay for the C implementation. (I'm imagining here
> that most commercial companies would not want to open up their source
> code)/
>
> Will that overcome the objections to a GPL slalib?
Thank you for alerting me to this issue.
I had failed to notice that there are the two flavours of GPL, and had
naively thought that the SLALIB/F licensing was such that use in building
proprietary applications remained prohibited. I strongly recommend that
SLALIB/F be licensed under the GPL provisions, not LGPL.
By the way, do I need to edit some stuff into each of the Fortran modules
to specify the licensing status? If so, can you produce the requisite
perl script to save me some work?
Patrick Wallace
____________________________________________________________________________
Starlink/HMNAO Internet: [log in to unmask]
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Tel: +44-1235-445372
Chilton, Didcot, Fax: +44-1235-446362
Oxon OX11 0QX, UK
____________________________________________________________________________
|