Licensing Code

Since Breve is GPL it's logical that the source libraries get an LGPL license. This is specifically what the LGPL was designed for, libraries and Plug-ins. Applications that interface with Breve should be GPL such as a Content Management System that has a specific XML API for Breve's Network.tz.

You will need to add a GPL or LGPL license disclaimer to your project before we can modify your copyrighted work. For those of us that don't understand the GPL/LGPL you can still copyright your work (because you have the right to copy it) and you give others permission to modify the code, use the code, add a copyright to their portion, and sell the code provided that the original source is included without modification for free.

The LGPL has a distinct advantage over the GPL when you create a plug-in all of the above apply except that you are not excluding your right to keep part of your work compiled without your source modifications. (Source modifications could include binaries or other code not included in the original source) For example you could sell a suite of plug-ins without releasing the source for those plug-ins, and still retain copyright on the original source and your plug-ins.

The sum advantage of this is that the copyright owners give you the above rights to use the work and if someone trademark's the name or patents their own modifications, you don't need permission (from hundreds of other developers) to make further changes or publish the code because you gave or were given the right to begin with. The protection the GPL/LGPL gives us is that for example if four developers have trademarks on their binaries new name and patents on their source modifications (where their binaries are considered trade secrets) in addition thirty other developers have made modifications to the source. No one or group of developers can claim entire exclusive rights over the entire source. The GPL/LGPL protects trademark owners, patent holders, and existing open source developers.

One loop hole that some people try to exploit is to trademark existing code names, and claim exculsive rights over the entire source code. In general this won't hold in a US Court of law because the name already existed and with over forty site owners with the same project name ( that could be existing companies ), no one company make claim to all the others. In addition when developing applications on a vendor supported operating system such as Windows XP or Mac OS X application developers are free to decide what applications to code without being required to get a license to code on that particular platform. This same legal theory applies to open source platforms such as FreeBSD, a vendor neutral operating system.

Carry on,