Licensing of wrappers around C/C++ code under more restrictive licensing.

[Graham Dumpleton]

"Roger Binns" <rogerb at rogerbinns.com> wrote in message news:<9tt9h1-h1d.ln1 at home.rogerbinns.com>...
> > The next version of OSE will try to address this issue by allowing use of
> > the Python wrappers under a BSD or Python style license, provided that
> > the C++ layer underneath is left as is. Change the C++ layer underneath
> > and the QPL will apply up through the Python code as well.
> 
> I can tell you that I immediately ruled out OSE for my open source project
> http://bitpim.sf.net licensed under the Artistic License because of the
> license of OSE.

I am surprised you even went as far as looking at the license for OSE as
in looking at "bitpim", not sure that what OSE had to offer in the way
of functionality would even have made it appropriate for what you were
doing.

Anyway, interesting you mention the "Artistic License" as I have been
looking at that as an alternative license to use instead of QPL. On first
glance it may not conflict with the license I have from the company
where I worked when first developing OSE and which allows me to
continue to develop it and redistribute it.

The next version of OSE was in effect going to come in two variants
anyway, a standard version and an extended version. The standard
version is more or less what is out there now, but the extended version
has extra C++ stuff, only usable through C++ and not used in Python
wrappers, which gives additional value add. The standard version
could be switched from QPL to the Artistic License perhaps, especially
since that will pretty well stay static now since all new work being done
in the extended version anyway. The extended version would be strictly
non commercial use only unless a separate paid license was obtained.
I would like to make a bit of money from the 14 years of work that I
have put into all of this. :-)