licensing question for a C++ template library

[Benoît Jacob]

Hi List,

I'm (co-)developing a C++ template library, Eigen:
http://edu.kde.org/kalzium/eigen/index.php

We're wondering which license to choose for it.

As a template library, it consists mostly/entirely of headers and these 
headers contain the actual code. I'm not sure what the GNU licenses say in 
that case, so could you please help me fill the following table? (You need to 
use a fixed-width font to display it properly).

+------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
|                              | a program or library licensed under the... |
|                              +-----+------+--------+------------+---------+
|                              | GPL | LGPL | BSD    | Non-free   |Non-free |
|                              |     |      | (no ad | but sources| closed- |
|                              |     |      | clause)| available  | source  |
+------------------+-----------+-----+------+--------+------------+---------+
| can use a C++    |           |     |      |        |            |         |
| template library | GPL       | yes |  ?   |   ?    |    no      |   no    |
| licensed under   |           |     |      |        |            |         |
| the ...          +-----------+-----+------+--------+------------+---------+
| and still remain |           |     |      |        |            |         |
| distributable    | LGPL      | yes |  yes |   ?    |    ?       |   ?     |
| under its own    |           |     |      |        |            |         |
| license          +-----------+-----+------+--------+------------+---------+
|                  |           |     |      |        |            |         |
|                  | BSD       | ?   |   ?  |   yes  |    ?       |   ?     |
|                  |           |     |      |        |            |         |
|                  +-----------+-----+------+--------+------------+---------+
|                  |           |     |      |        |            |         |
|                  | add your  |     |      |        |            |         |
|                  | idea here |     |      |        |            |         |
|------------------+-----------+-----+------+--------+------------+---------+

I've put question marks (?) where I don't know the answer.

Before you ask: I really don't care about proprietary software in itself. I'm 
just asking about it:

1) out of curiosity
2) because there's some dual-licensed software (think Qt) and I have nothing
   against that, so if possible i'd like our library to be usable by such
   dual-licensed software. I guess that corresponds to the 4th column, not
   the 5th one, since by definition such software distributes its sources.

What's vital for our lib is to be usable by GPL and LGPL software, the rest is 
optional, but still a plus. All other things equal, we'd prefer a GNU license 
over BSD or some other very liberal license. So, by filling the above table, 
you help us making the right choice :-)

Thanks for your help
Benoit

PS: please keep in CC the people who I have put in CC.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20061022/9dc19e77/attachment.sig>