Hi. I have a quick question for the developers about licensing. I noticed that NetXMS is under GPL v2.0. (Just a tip, there should be a place to find this out on the homepage without having to download the source code).
I was wondering whether you have, or would, consider releasing any portion of NetXMS under LGPL.
To clarify, LGPL is the Lesser GPL, and in a nutshell it says that you can build your own custom code (a derivative work) against a library released under the LGPL license without having to release your custom code as GPL.
I am interested in recommending your software to a customer. NetXMS meets most, but not all, of my customer's requirements and I would be tasked to write some custom software, probably linking against your API, to fill in the missing functionality. But I'm quite certain that my customer would not consent to releasing the code I develop for them as open source. LGPL was intended to address just this sort of situation.
Anyway, there are a wide range of attitudes on whether FOSS should be able to be used to build commercial software or not, and I was wondering whether the lack of mention of LGPL was inadvertent or intentional. Thanks.
Tony
I was wondering whether you have, or would, consider releasing any portion of NetXMS under LGPL.
To clarify, LGPL is the Lesser GPL, and in a nutshell it says that you can build your own custom code (a derivative work) against a library released under the LGPL license without having to release your custom code as GPL.
I am interested in recommending your software to a customer. NetXMS meets most, but not all, of my customer's requirements and I would be tasked to write some custom software, probably linking against your API, to fill in the missing functionality. But I'm quite certain that my customer would not consent to releasing the code I develop for them as open source. LGPL was intended to address just this sort of situation.
Anyway, there are a wide range of attitudes on whether FOSS should be able to be used to build commercial software or not, and I was wondering whether the lack of mention of LGPL was inadvertent or intentional. Thanks.
Tony