hi :-)

i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
part of my libraries.

i begun from a very small Ada.* complement :
http://svn.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/rapid/trunk/mcc_gui/mcc-str.ads?view=m
arkup&pathrev=268

at that point, it was obvious to me that the smallness of the code meant
that it would be better for the common good to release it into the
public domain, than under any free software license.

now i've added some code to this, and i want to continue.

....and I'm thinking about switching to a license like LGPL.

do you have an opinion about that?

isn't that too disadvantageous in some cases?
for example, if gnat wants to integrate my code, is LGPL compatible
enough with their own license?

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
> part of my libraries.

Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
customer asks/pays for a different license.

--
-- Stephe

In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>
> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
> > part of my libraries.
>
> Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
> customer asks/pays for a different license.

do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

In article <62dbe7d5$0$2985$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> wrote:

> In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>
> > Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
> > > part of my libraries.
> >
> > Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
> > customer asks/pays for a different license.
>
> do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??

i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.

BTW, do you have an opinion about pragma License ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.1.0/gnat_rm/Pragma-License.html

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>
>> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>>
>> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
>> > part of my libraries.
>>
>> Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
>> customer asks/pays for a different license.
>
> do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??

Yes; GPL 3 has a better way of handling libraries.

--
-- Stephe

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> In article <62dbe7d5$0$2985$426a74cc@news.free.fr>,
> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
>> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>> >
>> > > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
>> > > part of my libraries.
>> >
>> > Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
>> > customer asks/pays for a different license.
>>
>> do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??
>
> i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.

"better" by what metric?

> BTW, do you have an opinion about pragma License ?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.1.0/gnat_rm/Pragma-License.html

Always use it.

--
-- Stephe

In article <86ilnmu1ax.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>
> > i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.
>
> "better" by what metric?

it allows you to access sources even when you use it only via a server,
not directly on your computer. no other change.
(am i wrong?)

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

In article <86mtcyu1c6.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
> >> > part of my libraries.
> >>
> >> Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
> >> customer asks/pays for a different license.
> >
> > do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??
>
> Yes; GPL 3 has a better way of handling libraries.

could you precise me please?

does it allow to use it in any proprietary program, as required for this
kind of generic libraries?

do you use "pragma License Modified_GPL" or "pragma License GPL" on
libraries?

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> In article <86mtcyu1c6.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>
>> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>>
>> > In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
>> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
>> >> > part of my libraries.
>> >>
>> >> Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
>> >> customer asks/pays for a different license.
>> >
>> > do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??
>>
>> Yes; GPL 3 has a better way of handling libraries.
>
> could you precise me please?
>
> does it allow to use it in any proprietary program, as required for this
> kind of generic libraries?

You did not mention this requirement before.

> do you use "pragma License Modified_GPL" or "pragma License GPL" on
> libraries?

Modified_GPL allows use in proprietary programs; GPL does not.

--
-- Stephe

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> In article <86ilnmu1ax.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>
>> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>>
>> > i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.
>>
>> "better" by what metric?
>
> it allows you to access sources even when you use it only via a server,
> not directly on your computer. no other change.

That states a feature of the license; it does not say why you think that
is a good thing.

GPL explicitly does not allow that, because it means you do not control
the software you are using, which is considered the primary requirement
for Free Software.

There are times when servers are a good thing (email, git host), but
most software should run locally.

--
-- Stephe

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 1:28:43 AM UTC+2, Thomas wrote:
> i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a

Licenses are nothing more than tools. It really depends on the goals you want to achieve with this project.

When I publish a library it's usually because I want it to be useful for as many people as possible.
So in my opinion, for libraries, stay away from any GPL variant as they are a red-flags in many contexts and for many people.

I think Apache 2.0 or MIT are best options.

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:

>> do you use "pragma License Modified_GPL" or "pragma License GPL" on
>> libraries?
>
> Modified_GPL allows use in proprietary programs; GPL does not.

Not sure about Modified_GPL: the GNAT RM section[1] gives the strong
impression that it's talking about the old-fashioned GMGPL, but nowadays
people using the GPL ought to be using the GCC Runtime Library
Exception. On the other hand, the actual test GNAT uses to decide the
license a file without the pragma is using (contains the words "As a
special exception") will match either.

SPDX: "GPL-3.0-or-later WITH GCC-exception-3.1"

[1] https://docs.adacore.com/live/wave/gnat_rm/html/gnat_rm/gnat_rm/implementation_defined_pragmas.html#pragma-license

In article <98f62ae7-d908-4376-ab85-eb2f5787a4d5n@googlegroups.com>,
Fabien Chouteau <fabien.chouteau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 1:28:43 AM UTC+2, Thomas wrote:
> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use for a
>
> Licenses are nothing more than tools. It really depends on the goals you want
> to achieve with this project.

ok.

>
> When I publish a library it's usually because I want it to be useful for as
> many people as possible.

too :-)

> So in my opinion, for libraries, stay away from any GPL variant as they are a
> red-flags in many contexts and for many people.

i think the best would be a LGPL-like License.
is there some LGPL-like License which does not have "GPL red-flags"?

>
> I think Apache 2.0 or MIT are best options.

i don't want BSD-like Licenses, i find them far too permissive.

are you French speaking ?
could you have a look at <62db6446$0$3011$426a74cc@news.free.fr> please?
:-)

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

In article <86czdu1djq.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <86ilnmu1ax.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >> > i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.
> >>
> >> "better" by what metric?
> >
> > it allows you to access sources even when you use it only via a server,
> > not directly on your computer. no other change.
>
> That states a feature of the license; it does not say why you think that
> is a good thing.
>
> GPL explicitly does not allow that, because it means you do not control
> the software you are using, which is considered the primary requirement
> for Free Software.
>
> There are times when servers are a good thing (email, git host), but
> most software should run locally.

are you speaking about SaaSS?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html

GPL does not forbid SaaSS because it can't.
GPL allows an SaaSS provider to not give access to sources,
whereas AGPL doesn't.

(am i wrong?)

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

In article <86h7361dpf.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:

> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <86mtcyu1c6.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >> > In article <86sfmsi7ir.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> >> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > i would like your opinion please, about which license i should use
> >> >> > for a
> >> >> > part of my libraries.
> >> >>
> >> >> Always use the GPL unless you have a specific reason not to; ie, a
> >> >> customer asks/pays for a different license.
> >> >

> >> > do you use GPL rather than LGPL on libraries ??
> >>
> >> Yes; GPL 3 has a better way of handling libraries.
> >
> > could you precise me please?

what is this "better way" compared to GPL 2?

> >
> > does it allow to use it in any proprietary program, as required for this
> > kind of generic libraries?
>
> You did not mention this requirement before.

i told "small Ada.* complements".
they could be usefull for anyone.

>
> > do you use "pragma License Modified_GPL" or "pragma License GPL" on
> > libraries?
>
> Modified_GPL allows use in proprietary programs; GPL does not.

ok.
afaiu, i should use "pragma License" in this way, even if i choose an
other License than any GPL variant.

--
RAPID maintainer
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/rapid/

Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:

> In article <86czdu1djq.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>
>> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>>
>> > In article <86ilnmu1ax.fsf@stephe-leake.org>,
>> > Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thomas <fantome.forums.tDeContes@free.fr.invalid> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > i would say that AGPL is even better, but ALGPL is missing.
>> >>
>> >> "better" by what metric?
>> >
>> > it allows you to access sources even when you use it only via a server,
>> > not directly on your computer. no other change.
>>
>> That states a feature of the license; it does not say why you think that
>> is a good thing.
>>
>> GPL explicitly does not allow that, because it means you do not control
>> the software you are using, which is considered the primary requirement
>> for Free Software.
>>
>> There are times when servers are a good thing (email, git host), but
>> most software should run locally.
>
> are you speaking about SaaSS?
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
>
> GPL does not forbid SaaSS because it can't.
> GPL allows an SaaSS provider to not give access to sources,
> whereas AGPL doesn't.

https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-agpl-license/

Ok, I was confused.

--
-- Stephe