nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 19:19:08 -0000
Message-Id: <19991004191512.16087.qmail@mail.relight.com>
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 14:52:39 -0400 you wrote:
>> The problem, as you've noted, is that many would want to link the server
>> into their applications. I know that we (Screen Media) can't continue to
>> work on it if the code isn't available under another license (apart from
>> the *GPL's) as well, and the result would be yet another code split.
>
>Can you say what it is in *GPL that would make it unworkable for Screen
>Media?
I did in another message. To reiterate: We might be licensing third party
code which we have no control on the license for, and where they are
willing to port if they won't have to give us access to binary. Not being
able to do that would kill a key benefit of using NanoGUI for us.
>> I thought we'd already agreed on the MPL as a decent common denominator,
>> but I'd have no problems with dual licensing the code under both *GPL
>> and MPL.
>
>This is an idea, but why? Doesn't MPL completely kill any GPL benefit? Why
>would someone choose to use it under GPL when they can use it under MPL?
That depends on what you consider the benefit of the GPL in this case.
It would allow people to write GPL'd programs with it, and to user GPL'd
code in their applications, *OR* to link it to non-free programs (using
the server under the MPL).
The main downside I see is that we'd increase the risc for splitting the
tree again, if someone wants to contribute code, but only under the GPL
or only under the MPL.
Regards,
Vidar
