nanogui: Licensing
Subject:
Re: Licensing
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
11 May 1999 09:01:09 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905110953340.11663-100000@www.linuxhacker.org>
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Warner Losh wrote:
> Personally, I like the FreeBSD model license the best. It is the
> traditional BSD licensing, with the advertising/documentation clause
> removed. It gives the software the most freedom to be used in any
I quite like it too, though it does mean that companies can take your
code, improve it, sell it, and not release the improvements. Some people
don't like that, as it means a commercial version of the program they put
a lot of effort into writing is better than their own version of it.
> Putting it under the GPL would make it very hard for somebody to
> deploy a PDA device with this gui if they wanted (or needed) to keep
> the source code secret, or be forced to release portions of their
> product that give them a competive advantage. This can be both good
We're only talking about the server itself, not the programs which run on
it. It doesn't seem right that a company should be able to improve the
server without releasing the improvements. One thing which just came to
mind though, is what if a company writes a module, ie a graphics driver or
window manager which links in with the server, or if they want to use the
server in "linked into the application" mode rather than client/server
mode...
I think I still prefer leaving it as it is, with the addition of a "we are
not responsible" clause, which is missing at the moment, or maybe changing
it to FreeBSD style, which is very close anyway.
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------