From: Milan B. <mi...@km...> - 2005-11-20 17:14:27
|
Olivier Mascia wrote: > In case of FlameRobin, I perfectly understand, agree and support the > idea of it being GPL'd. That is a complete program. It is not meant to > be integrated in other developments, as a whole or in part. Being GPL > mean I can grab the source code, compile it, run it. My customers can > do so. They can even find pre-built binaries here and there and use > them. That's nice. On the other side I have then no right, as a > commercial company (or anybody else) to integrate it as a whole or in > parts in another program without making the source code of that other > program available. That sounds perfect and logical. But what does GPL > provide regarding people extending, enhancing FR ? Are they obliged to > contribute these to the initial FR project ? No. They are obliged give the modifications they make to the ones they give/sell program to. > Or can they spawn multiple > different forks of your original work ? Yes, as long as the fork is also under GPL. There are even examples of such project where developers couldn't agree on some issues and created separate projects. > Dual licensing, I can consider it. Not sure immediately GPL fits the > bill as the second option. Having dual licensing doesn't affect MPL license at all. > I had considered another one : the TIP 1.0 license. What is that ? That > is the very same text as MPL 1.1, with courts being located in MY own > town in Belgium and no reference to Mozilla as an organization but > T.I.P. Group, my company. I would have preferred to go that way at > first, but that one would have taken years to get recognized as a true > open-source license. So I went with MPL 1.1. Well, IDPL isn't recognized as well, so... -- Milan Babuskov http://www.flamerobin.org |