We are releasing development libraries, not entire programs...
    The Mozilla license fit the bill for us perfectly.

Using an LGPL-covered library can't really be impossibly painful for
business, since all the companies that link proprietary programs for
GNU/Linux have done it.  They all use GNU libc, which is covered by
the LGPL.

But if you don't like the requirements that the LGPL puts on
executables, you might prefer using the Guile terms.  They permit
linking the library into any combination with no restrictions on the
use of the combination.  For info on Guile, including where to get it,
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html.  The distribution terms
may be in those pages; if not, they are certainly in the Guile source.

I hope that you'll make SOME change, because using the MPL means your
library can't legally be used in GPL-covered programs (unless the
copyright holders of that program make a special exception for it).
Another thing you might consider is releasing the library under two
different licenses, much the same way Perl uses both the GPL and the
Artistic License.  If you used the GPL and the MPL both, you would
solve this problem.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html