Subject: Re: Updated license - please comment
From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:13:26 -0400 (EDT)

Mark Rafn <> wrote, in part:

> It doesn't even seem close to me.  Let me know if I'm insane, or reading 
> it wrong, but I can't see how such a restriction can be considered open 
> source.
> I know they're straight from the LGPL, but they are irrelevant there
> because the LGPL is a pure superset of the GPL (see LGPL section 3),
> unlike the license under discussion.
> Yes, this indicates that I think the LGPL without section 3 would 
> be non-open-source.

I agree with you.

I have difficulty understanding 2d.  It seems complicated.

In private email, Christophe Dupre summarized the intention this way:

> 2 d is there to make sure that the library remains usefull by itself, and
> does not become a wrapper for proprietary tools.

I don't know if 2 d meets that intention or not.  It is hard to understand 2d.
But I have my doubts that the intention is compatible with Open Source,
(depending on how we define "Proprietary")

license-discuss archive is at