Subject:
|
Re: License revision 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:31:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
708 times
|
| |
|
|
Pat Mahoney wrote:
>
> Why? Say Internet explorer had some sort of propriety file format for
> something or other for which it was desirable to be able to read from.
> Let's also say the MS give control over IE to a non-profit
> organization. IE can be obtained for free right now, and if it was
> under the control of a non-profit it could be considered
> non-commercial, no? This allows my market dominating semi-commercial
> software to circumvent your license terms. This is not a very good
> example, but:
>
> What is the purpose of requiring things from commercial software but
> not others?
The idea of making it different for commercial applications was to
allow L3P to continue to be distributed under its current license. Now I
see that it's a bad thing and #5 should either be completely removed or
required for free applications as well.
> > If this library is used with a commercial application then it's use
> > and redistribution is also subject to the following conditions:
>
> should probably be "this library in original or modified form is used
> within" or "distributed with" or
Yes.
> How does one define "commercial"? I can, if I am a commercial entity or
> not, charge money for the distribution of free software. (i.e. Red Hat
> sells free software). Does a GPL'd app sold by the commercial entity Red
> Hat become a commercial app? I know that [most] any software Red Hat
> sells can be obtained gratis, but the line of "commercial" or not seems
> very fuzzy.
In the RH case, it doesn't make any difference because it's a free
download. But I agree that we could use a better definition for
commercial.
> > 4. All library contributors must be granted a full license to use the
> > application for only a nominal fee to cover the physical act of
> > transferring a copy of the application.
>
> I have a hard time seeing any company agreeing to this. I mean, I trust
> you, but since the library is community developed, the community
> decides who is considered a contributor, and could theoretically put
> *anyone* on the contributors list (again, I am not at all suggesting
> that this would actually happen).
I also don't like this but if we add the complete list of contributors
to the end of the license then we can eliminate that problem.
If a new person contributes to the library, he would have to be added
to the license on the next library update and then the company can use
the updated library (with the new contributor added) or keep using the
older version.
> > 5. If the library or parts of it are converted to another format
> > then the source code of the program used to convert the library
> > must also be made available.
>
> As someone else mentioned, if rendering a model is converting, that
> means a proprietary renderer cannot be used as it is a commercial
> application that is using the parts library. I suppose with careful
> wording, this could be cleared up though.
This is meant to be only the program used to convert the library to
the new format, like the code in leocad/tools/convert, just a .cpp file.
> If this clause is included, I think it should be made very clear as to
> how this source code is to be made available. I can freely give source
> code to those willing to sign an NDA (although, if everyone in the
> whole world signed the NDA it would kinda defeat the purpose, but you
> get the idea).
Ok, the NDA idea is a good one.
Leonardo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: License revision 1
|
| First, koen, I am the one who asked. I would like to package leocad for Debian GNU/Linux, and I cannot [legally] distribute the ldraw parts library with it unless it contains an acceptable license. (...) Why? Say Internet explorer had some sort of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
