Subject:
RE: Stupid licensing thread (Was: Request for comments - Microwin
dows)
From:
Jean-Eric Cuendet ####@####.####
Date:
5 Oct 1999 09:23:34 -0000
Message-Id: <B45465FD9C23D21193E90000F8D0F3DF682E7D@mailsrv.linkvest.ch>
I sent this message one hour ago but was misinterpreted. The destinator is
David, not Vidar.
Do please reread it with this in mind.
Thanks
-jec
Message:
Hi,
I think this remark is stupid!
Of course we don't want that the code we wrote is used by commercial
companies, but don't you think that those companies can make great steps in
free software?
Example:
Do you think Linux would be what it is today if RedHat, SuSe, Caldera,
etc... don't make money on it. And don't forget that RedHat for example use
ONLY free software!
If we think like you think : "... those companies can write their own
library...", the work of these companies is just loosed for open-source
software. If we think that those companies that have people working
full-time on open-source software can add value to open-source software and
help our work in this area, it will be a good thing.
But that don't means that those companies must release all their work under
open-source. Think of Oracle, Sybase, etc... porting their DB to Linux. They
use the work of the glibc coders, the kernel coders, etc... but don't
release their source-code. Nobody is complaining about that.
That's the reason why the LGPL, MPL licenses were created. And we MUST use
it where it's possible to use it. Don't forget too, that KDE and GNOME is
developped by some people that are paid by commercial companies to work full
time on it. It won't be possible if those companies don't make money on
open-source software.
Hope this will change your opinion on this license thread.
Bye
-jec
-----Original Message-----
From: Vidar Hokstad ####@####.####
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 12:51 AM
To: David Murn
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Subject: Re: Stupid licensing thread (Was: Request for comments -
Microwindows)
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:44:43 +1000 (EST) you wrote:
>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.
In our case, our alternative is to write our own library, yes, or choose
one under a less restrictive license. Currently I work part time on a widget
set for NanoGUI. In the near future I and another developer will be working
nearly full time on it, and we also sponsor another company to port a major
software product to NanoGUI.
This is code that we contribute back. If the _contributors_ to NanoGUI
regards prefer a restrictive licensing scheme over those contributions,
then fine. In that case we'll spend our time and money improving
another product instead, or license a closed source product instead of
spending or time and money on supporting an open source project.
>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.
Actually they wouldn't have had to if they didn't want to. The XFree license
permits closed source use.
Vidar Hokstad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
