Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
sbigaret
From: Yannick G. <ygi...@yg...> - 2004-02-25 14:00:40
|
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On February 24, 2004 10:42, Marcos Dione wrote: > I think the stock answer is: LGPL or a double licencing, like qt > does. those are the simple choices. or you can try to build a new > license, but try to avoid the errors made by xfree or apache. maybe you > can also read the slashdot articles and comments and draw your own > conclusions. I think that the dual licencing (=E0 la Qt) is better than the LGPL if you want something back from your code. With dual licencing, you either get an application back or at least some money. With the LGPL, someone user your lib on a commercial product and you don't get anything back. Given two comparable libraries, I will alway tend to support the one that enforce the free software spirit the most (GPL > LGPL > BSD). If Cygnus can make money with GPL code, why can't you too ? How would closing your sources help you ? If you go the GPL way, yes, you have your source open but you can use much more code that you won't have to develop in-house. Your application will cost you less to develop. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html Modelling is that kind of framework that is clever enough for you to say that you prefer to open your sources and use Modelling instead of closing your source and code it from scratch. If that matter, my vote it to keep it GPL, it deserve it. =2D --=20 Yannick Gingras "The best writing is rewriting= =2E" Coder for OBB : Overhead Brownish-orange Bivouac -- Elwyn Brooks Whi= te http://OpenBeatBox.org =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAPKheZJ8/OobqizMRAlmKAKCu6QvKvQN02E4aMknmCif87CYTlACcDWIT ZXy+sOQMnqq3DP5R4glPUS0=3D =3DdJj+ =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |