Transport protocols and bulk file transfer

[Yunhong Gu <>]

> Stas: When was UDT license changed to LGPL?  Gu: about three months
> ago, so that any improvements anyone makes would be released back to
> the community.  Stas believes this to be a mistake---anyone who would
> be inclined not to release source code for changes to a BSD-licensed
> program would be very unlikely to make those changes to an
> LGPL-licensed one in the first place.

One important condition is that these restrictions are only effective with 
distributions, i.e., LGPL only has an impact on those who want to 
redistribute a work derived from UDT without disclosing the modifications 
they made. Using UDT inside a research institute or private company, 
modified or not, is a not a problem at all.

I don't think there is a lot of companies interested in making 
profit from selling UDT. Even if there is any, they can either rewrite 
it from scratch or contact UIC for a commercial license (dual-licensing, 
like MySQL does).

So personally I prefer LGPL, but I will listen to Bob's advice.

btw, I understand your concern on the distributions of Inetrnet bulk data 
transfer tool. But inside the research community, I believe using UDT w/ 
LGPL won't hurt anybody.

Thanks,
Gu

> The change can hamper adoption
> of UDT, and anything built with UDT as its foundation, because
> commercial entities would be reluctant to include [L]GPL-licensed
> software into their distributions.