Re: [ng-spice] Readline Response
Kev wrote:
> I don't disagree with that, however I think we are still in a grey area. If
>I
> deliver a working standalone program that is capable of dynamically loading
> extra funcionality at the customer/user site but does not depend on doing so
> (and I don't deliver the extras either), am I breaking any license
>agreement?
I think that you are, but I agree with you: it is a grey area.
>
> Perl would seem to fall into this category, i.e. you can quite easily
>plug-in
> extra bits of your own, but perl itself runs without them.
Ys but the perl licence is not GPL.
>
> > This means that we would need the readline library to be LGPL'd rather
>than GPL'd
> > to link ngspice against it (or ngspice to be GPL'd)
>
> Has anyone asked Berkley about releasing a GPL'd version of Spice 3? (They
> may do this for a small financial consideration, commercial release is ~$250
> I think).
It might be worth asking , but I doubt that they would agree. Berkeley has
never
been really a fan on the GPL ;-) - This would also require all patch
contributors
to change their licence as well (Berkeley isn't the only copyright holder)
>
> Also, if the ng-spice project was split into a GPL'd user-interface and
>generic
> simulation interface, with the BSD Spice 3 as one of a number of possible
> (dynamically loadable) simulation engines, does that break any license
>agreement?
To me the best arrangement would be like linux: the simulator is GPL'd but
allows plug-ins (for proprietary models for instance)
manu
Partial thread listing:
- Re: [ng-spice] Readline Response, (continued)
NG-SPICE Implementation Document,
Paolo Nenzi