Closed liyishuai closed 3 years ago
Why the MPL rather than MIT or BSD?
The current LGPL is weak-copyleft, so I proposed MPL which is still weak-copyleft but easier to clarify.
I'm ok with licensing the plugin as MPL or MIT (or BSD).
Shouldn't plugins be lgpl so that they can exchange code with coq?
Shouldn't plugins be lgpl so that they can exchange code with coq?
What about double licensing then?
Shouldn't plugins be lgpl so that they can exchange code with coq?
That's a fair question.
What about double licensing then?
This would work for the external plugin to Coq path, but not for the other way (I don't know if it's really important though).
Do we need double licensing for MPL code in LGPL project?
Do we need double licensing for MPL code in LGPL project?
No, actually, you're right. Since MPL 2.0 is explictly designed to be (L)GPL-compatible, we don't.
I can foresee migrating code from here to Coq repo, but not backwards. Propose merging on Monday if no other concerns arise.
I've noticed that this repo uses LGPL which is no longer recommended by the community. Should we switch license before having more contributors?