Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:45:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 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.
>
> Leonardo
Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but as an application developer,
this is my statement on this point:
I've put in about a hundred hours into my parts-using app BrickDraw3D. I'm
willing to give the program away but not on GPL terms. If GPL were somehow a
requirement, I would just kill the project out of principle.
My reasons are probably the usual ones that led to the creation of the LGPL and
other licenses, which don't try to impose terms on your original work (requiring
distribution of just the LGPL portions.)
As part of developing BrickDraw3D, I contribute source code to an LGPL project,
Quesa, a 3D graphics framework. Portions of my code are also in LDGLite. I
believe I am giving adequate value in trade by contributing to the libraries I
use--perhaps eventually the parts library too. Certainly I am creating a parts-
editor, which opens even more doors.
Like your position on the parts themselves, I am protective of my work too. The
way I see it, strict GPL undermines cooperation.
For the record, I intend to release source code to my app under Artistic
License. (I like Perl...) Beyond some level of development, I will try to go
the shareware route--and there, again, is why a parts license is necessary.
-Erik
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| "Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:G5G03K.E93@lugnet.com... (...) either. (...) developer, (...) I'm (...) somehow a (...) LGPL and (...) (requiring (...) project, (...) I (...) libraries I (...) parts- (...) too. The (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: License - again
|
| I like the artistic license, but not for a library of parts. The key issue to deal with in the LCAD library is "abandonment". The license must allow active LCAD people to maintain, modify, convert and distribute parts that people author. The (...) (24 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
