madscientist_42

Oh, it's actually simple. In this case, BSD, while lenient, is still rather specific. Attribution of all parties from whom the code came from in all documentation wherein you use the code. You can't claim it's yours unless it really is. If you've provided portions, you get to add your name to the list of parties in "1". There's additional clauses in some of the forms that preclude other things, but the above two carry. The problems begin when you misunderstand what the requirements are for the respective licenses. For example: It's not really any more obnoxious and you clearly don't understand how licensing works. In this case "rationalizing" all the GPL and LGPL licensed code would require your owning the total rights to the codebase at the very moment you re-licensed it. It fails on "2" of the BSD license space out of box (hint, hint...) to try in the first place and it's an explicit infringement of the Derivative works license called the GPL or LGPL to attempt it. Means you're guilty of infringement out of box. Ask Verizon and Actiontec how well that worked out for them with Busybox. Incorrect. The end user of an LGPLed piece of code has the rights to use it without any other obligations...so long as they're not distributing it. The end user of a BSD piece has similar obligations ultimately. All FOSS licenses are not end-user licenses. Not EULAs. EVER. They are publication and derivative works licenses. If you've never worked in a creative space wherein they have those sorts of deals you might not be familiar with them. Typically, many devs unless they're steeped in the FOSS space, won't ever see one...unless they're working in the Game Dev industry. You usually see derivative works and publication licensing in the Movie, Music, and Dead Trees spaces. They cover the rights protected by Copyright (EULAs DO NOT- they're an expansion of rights against the protected work to restrict what the user may/may not do, effectively trying to convert a SALE into a LEASE) wherein if you have one, you control the rights to produce exact copies and derivative works, by law. It's why Stallman and Moglen referred to them as Copyleft. A FOSS license is a royalty agreement you enter into, with varying required payments, with the rights holders to be able to make a follow-on publication or modification (and thereby a derivative work). For BSD, it's attribution and agreeing to not try to claim it all as yours. For the GPL it's announcing that it's GPLed code, telling the recipient "here's your rights under this distribution/publication, which includes being able to publish it yourself under the same terms", publishing the original protected work's source code along with any modifications you made. For LGPL, it does not bind as a derivative work to do a dynamic linkage to the code like the GPL does, so long as you don't prohibit reverse engineering of things in the .so/DLL/etc. and don't prohibit people from replacing your distribution with another that has the same API edge- if you modify the code under the LGPL, you're specifically obligated as royalty to provide those modifications. It's rather simple, really- and anyone used to dealing with a Royalty License for producing a product with someone else's library should "get" the GPL and LGPL- unless they're into plagiarism and pilfering that which is NOT theirs. Royalties do not play into an end-user's use. Royalties only ever come into play with a publication or derivative works situation. If you're using a LabView OpenG VI for automating your own process, NONE of the GPL/LGPL/BSD comes into play, period. if you're re-distributing it as part of your product, however... (Which means you're paying NI money in royalties as well...or had better be...) Take it from someone that actually does understand this all, even though he's not a lawyer, this is playing with fire. You don't want to go there, guys. You need not even fret ONCE if you're just using it. If you're doing internal applications, you're a USER, not a PUBLISHER. The litmus test would be this: Am I paying NationalInstrument for the rights to ship LabView as an application framework? If the answer's "NO", you should just quit worrying. Seriously. If the answer's "yes"...heh...you need to comply with your licenses- and you're willingly talking about things that'd violate the BSD license you're talking so highly of ("You can't claim it as solely your own"- trying to relicense? That's doing exactly what you're forbidden to do there by the act.) Well, then, knock yourself out on the replacements. Most authors licensing under the LGPL will probably pass on a BSD relicense, either because they're not a single person as a rightsholder, or they specifically licensed the thing under that license (I have licensed and do have active code licensed under MIT/X11, BSD, GPL, and LGPL out on GitHub...for the record...) and after seeing this lack of understanding on things, I'd just tell you "no" out of box if you asked me to do it. You really don't have a handle on BSD's requirements, nor do you have any grasp of what the LGPL's or GPL's are either. If you don't grok the licensing in the first place, why should I accommodate you? All you'll do is screw up on that as well...

Well, lad, don't be such a tease. Lua, done right, would be a wonderous addition to LabView. (For many tasks, G's good enough. The problem is, as the sophistication of operations increases, oftentimes you're better off with a little scripting/text language duct tape or processing...because it's easier) Is it something we can license or are you and your partners inclined to FOSS it? When can we actually lay our hands on it?