In article <87w### [at] bachcomposers>,
 Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:

>   3. Demand that all use of foobar-0.1 comply with the new license.
> 
> As long as you're only doing 1 & 2 there's no problem (well, depending
> on your point of view there might be some moral problems, and people
> are likely to complain...), but you can't legally do 3.

If I understand things properly, #3 is legal if the old license 
specifically stated that the license could be changed, so anyone using 
the software has warning.


> Else, I would suggest GNU GPL because choosing that makes it possible to
> share code with the rest of the GNU world and avoid license wars with
> various parties (that's the pragmatic reason, anyway). And then you
> don't have to worry that someone will steal your code and abuse it in
> some future commercial product.

But I worry about people *not* using it because it is GPL...some people 
apparently don't like GPL, which is why I'm looking on information about 
licensing.
The artistic license seems interesting...it looks like it would let 
people use it in a program and only have to release the CSDL part of the 
source code. The only other thing is that I want to be sure people know 
they're using CSDL, what it is, and where it came from. I basically 
don't want someone to take the code, maybe make it slightly incompatible 
and release it as something else or use it as the main feature of their 
program and make it look like their work.
If someone is willing to invest the time/money to make a product that 
uses CSDL, I would have nothing against them charging for their product 
or withholding the source code for their work, as long as they make any 
changes/enhancements to CSDL available. People will only buy it if it is 
better than the free stuff, and if the developer makes something better, 
I'll thank them.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message