Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:42:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1867 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> I don't think anyone will ever sell a program using our parts but I
> also don't want to be forced to pay anything to use such program either.
> GPL says that if the library is used in another application then the
> application must also be GPL, so you don't need to worry about it.
Right.
And that's my problem with GPL in a nutshell. It leaks into stuff.
Now, we've reasonably outlined how the parts license doesn't leak into stuff
like published designs, renderings, instruction sets, etc. But if licensing
the parts library with GPL (which is a sticky license, once you apply it you
can't remove it) means that no one can ever write a CAD program that uses
those parts and charge money for it, I'm against applying GPL.
IANAL so I can't say for sure whether it's true or not. My reasonableness
says it isn't. But licenses are not "reasonable" they're legal... if you
want reasonable and legal in the same concept, wrong planet. (c.f. florida
these days... sigh)
zlib is a much weaker license, it doesn't leak nearly as much as GPL. My
selfish wish is not to be prevented from doing things that might not be
free. Hence I like zlib better.
At least that's my take. I'd HATE to for example (not sure it's likely but
work with me here) see TLC constrained from making some sort of
interoperatability tool between LDraw format and whatever internal format
they use because of license issues. You can say "that's not a reasonable
interpretation of the license" but GPL is VERY WELL WRITTEN and it scares me
how sticky it is and how it leaks over into stuff.
On the other hand I think it would suck big time to see Chris Dee or
Franklin C or whoever prevented from using software that THEY HELPED CREATE
because of their parts authoring because the author wanted a bazillion
dollars. I'm very sympathetic to that viewpoint.
zlib with a clause tacked on that says that any author that ever gets a part
approved as part of the parts authoring/voting process is entitled to a free
copy (except for media charges) of any software that uses the lib??? How
about that?
IANAL so I dunno if that's very watertight or not.
Sorry for the hurry in which I wrote this, I'm paying through the nose for
this hotel dialup. Well, the client is but you know what i mean.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Sometimes it's scary how in agreement we are... (...) A differentiation which I think would also be valuable to make is a differentiation between any sort of converter program which uses the definition of the parts in the library to create an (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Someone gave an example about a text that was written with a copyrighted font, I think the same principle applies here. (...) In this case the person is redistributing a part of the library, so he must comply to the license terms. IANAL. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
