 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoo com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Ole Laursen" <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote in message
> news:87h### [at] bachcomposers...
> > > 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.
> >
> > Follow your heart. :-)
> >
> > But I think it would be wise to choose a GPL-compatible license.
>
> Sorry I'm jumping in the middle, but I only just started reading this
> thread...
>
> IIRC, the LGPL should work. The way I read it (and I hope someone
corrects
> me if I'm wrong), you can make a commercial product available using
> something LGPL'd, but you have to provide object binaries to link against
> newer versions of whatever LGPL'd stuff is there (though you don't have to
> guarantee compatability with future versions). Now, as I see it, dynamic
> linking already provides this functionality so, if you distribute your
> program in a form that uses dynamic linking, you're ok. Although, I'm not
a
> lawyer, so I'd like someone to correct me if I'm wrong...
>
> ...Chambers
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c50e445@news.povray.org>,
"Ben Chambers" <bdc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> IIRC, the LGPL should work. The way I read it (and I hope someone
> corrects me if I'm wrong), you can make a commercial product
> available using something LGPL'd, but you have to provide object
> binaries to link against newer versions of whatever LGPL'd stuff is
> there (though you don't have to guarantee compatability with future
> versions). Now, as I see it, dynamic linking already provides this
> functionality so, if you distribute your program in a form that uses
> dynamic linking, you're ok. Although, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like
> someone to correct me if I'm wrong...
Well, it looks interesting, but I'm not sure how it would be better or
worse than any of the others...
Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input
at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different
licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the
LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems
generally simpler and more understandable.
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input
> at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different
> licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-) If you leave out all the
GPL-incompatible licenses from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
it still gives you a lot to choose from. The X11 and BSD ones are
basically some sort of "public domain" license, as I understand it,
and are as such OK if you aren't interested in protecting your code
(but it seems you are).
The reason for choosing a GPL-compatible license is that else people
working on GPL'ed projects (and most free software is GPL'ed) can't
legally use your code - so you risk eternal complaints (or even a
clone project with the sole purpose of replacing the license).
The Freetype project apparently dual licenses their library just to
avoid this situation, Trolltech did the same with Qt for KDE and the
Mozilla project is currently also walking along that path. But dual
licensing is a mess, IMHO.
So according to the list on gnu.org I would avoid what they describe
as the original Artistic License. LGPL is simply GPL with the
permission to link with proprietary, closed software, so if that is
what you want, I'd recommend it instead. When you're using an
FSF-blessed license, you're also absolutely sure to stay out of
trouble. :-)
> The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the
> LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems
> generally simpler and more understandable.
I think you're underestimating how widely known the LGPL is compared
to the Artistic License. A lot of people probably wouldn't ever need
to read the license if you choose the LGPL.
But then again, most people probably wouldn't even look at the
license, anyway... ;-)
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> ,
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> Well, it looks interesting, but I'm not sure how it would be better or
> worse than any of the others...
> Does anyone have any reasons to *avoid* a particular license? Any input
> at all? I think I've had a total of 3 suggestions, for 3 different
> licenses...the Artistic License, GPL, and LGPL.
> The main two licenses I'm considering are the Artistic License and the
> LGPL, and I'm leaning strongly toward the Artistic License, which seems
> generally simpler and more understandable.
You should avoid the current GPL. It allows the FSF to change the license
in the future and the license allows to apply future licenses to your code
rather than the GPL license version you decided to use. Legally they could
even change the GPL to give them exclusive copyright or other rights and you
could do nothing about it.
Note that this provision is new and there was a lot of critzism when this
new version of the GPL appeared (because RMS forced this condition into it).
If you really want to use the GPL, use an older version without the "or any
future GPL" clause.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c51e47a@news.povray.org>,
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> You should avoid the current GPL. It allows the FSF to change the license
> in the future and the license allows to apply future licenses to your code
> rather than the GPL license version you decided to use. Legally they could
> even change the GPL to give them exclusive copyright or other rights and you
> could do nothing about it.
Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <877### [at] bachcomposers>,
Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:
> Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-)
The Clarified Artistic License is listed as "GPL compatible" on that
page.
--
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
> the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
> I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
> License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
> I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
> don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.
GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in commercial
projects - afterall who would ever know
--
Rick
Kitty5 WebDesign - http://Kitty5.com
POV-Ray News & Resources - http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote in message
news:3c527a13@news.povray.org...
> > Ok, I remember reading something about this...I guess it was sitting at
> > the back of my mind, bugging me while refusing to come forward. ;-)
> > I'll probably go with the Artistic License, maybe the Clarified Artistic
> > License...it seems very reasonable and straightforward.
> > I'll avoid the GPL from now on, even if that clause gets removed. I
> > don't trust people who would put that kind of thing in the license.
>
> GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
> 3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
> unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in
commercial
> projects - afterall who would ever know
GPL doesn't even say you can't - they just say you have to include a copy of
the GPL, and tell people where on the Internet they can download the same
thing for free.
...Chambers
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. If I am in error, please don't sue me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> writes:
> GPL is a cancerous waste pf space, its only real effect has been to stifle
> 3rd party Linux software. I don't think for one second it has stopped any
> unscrupulous developer pinching open source code for inclusion in commercial
> projects - afterall who would ever know
Well, you are wrong then.
In the short period of time I've been following the free software
world, there has been several incidents. Former employees is one way
of hearing about these things. I think the reason the incidents aren't
widely known is because the FSF has been able to settle all cases
peacefully.
If you don't believe me, try searching Slashdot or one of the other
big news sites for "GPL violation".
However, this is way off-topic.
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> writes:
> In article <877### [at] bachcomposers>,
> Ole Laursen <ola### [at] hardworkingdk> wrote:
>
> > Well, avoid GPL-incompatible licenses. :-)
>
> The Clarified Artistic License is listed as "GPL compatible" on that
> page.
Yes, so if you intend to use that, I guess everything is fine. :-)
--
Ole Laursen
http://sunsite.dk/olau/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
