licensing choice [was RE: D/BUS IDL compiler ... #2 ...]

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 07:13, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Havoc,
> 
> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 11:58 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > The hope is that a new AFL version could preserve some patent protection
> > and clarity not found in the LGPL while resolving the concerns of large
> > patent-holding companies thus getting the best of all worlds.
> 
> 	I'm interested in what way the LGPL is considered unclear wrt. the
> patent issue.

If you distribute an LGPL program, are you automatically licensing all
your patents, and under what terms?

The unclarity I was referring to was broader than patents though - the
LGPL is pretty indecipherable really, though there's a widely accepted
interpretation.

> 	Interesting; clearly the sooner the better.

We'll sort it out...

Havoc