Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:23:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1645 times
|
| |
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:G5G03K.E93@lugnet.com...
> 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.
Good to hear more from the app. dev. side (for which I have utmost
respect)! What do you think about Larry P.'s idea to add a clause
requiring free (or nominal cost) application distribution to the
contributors to the parts library? ("Contributors" would have to include
people like Terry K. who put tons of effort into the library but (maybe)
haven't authored parts.)
From those who know the LGPL better than me, are there any deficiencies in
that license that would make it inadequate protection for the part library
? Or zlib?
-John Van
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) If we take that route then I assume that (L)GPL is not going to be used. I think we can also add a clause "other licenses can be negociated with the authors". I also liked the idea of requiring the source code for a conversion program, if the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) 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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
