[ccan] licensing

[Rusty Russell]

Sam Watkins <sam at nipl.net> writes:
> hello again.
>
> Most CPAN modules are availabe under a liberal "Artistic" license, which
> is not copyleft.  CPAN and perl are successful because we can use most
> any CPAN module in any commercial or open-source project.
>
> As you know, that is not the case with GPL licensed libraries.  They
> cannot be used with a proprietary licensed product, and they cannot be
> used with an open-source project if the license is not GPL-compatible.
>
> Is there any chance you'd consider shifting all of CCAN
> to be at least as liberal as the LGPL?
>
> My preference for licensing is public domain / CC0, MIT, BSD, LGPL in
> that order.  LGPL is harmful but tolerable.  Viral copyleft like the GPL
> is no good for a library of reusable code.
>
> I've been on this list for a long time, watching progess with interest,
> but I have never used CCAN, nor contributed anything, because you appear
> to be using the GPL by preference.

The author chooses the license, not CCAN.

So, you can certainly try to persuade others, or as Joey Adams, a
pro-BSD author did, lead by example.

Cheers,
Rusty.