nanogui: Re: Stupid licensing thread (Was: Request for comments - Microwindows)
Subject:
Re: Stupid licensing thread (Was: Request for comments - Microwindows)
From:
David Murn ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 20:53:26 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910050641171.1501-100000@grunge.hpy.hell>
On 4 Oct 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
> >I still personally think the MPL is the only standard license that fits
> >the linked in case at all
>
> I agree, but on the other hand I'd gladly support licensing the code under
> both the GPL and the MPL, so that those who wants to develop free software
> can do so and still use other GPL'd software in their programs.
IMHO, the simple/obvious answer is GPL. If someone wants to write
commercial/closedsource programs, there's nothing at all stopping them
from writing their own library, under their own license. I very much
dislike the thought of someone making money off any code I've written,
without giving something back to the opensource community, and I'm sure
quite a few people would agree.
As long as the API and/or messaging protocol are open spec, then anyone
can write their own library. X is an example, XFree uses opensource
license, metrox and accelx used closed. Same function, same result, but
they had to write their own library.
Davey
