modeling-users

[Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Ernesto R. <er...@si...>]

Dear Sebasti=E9n,

actually, your framework is GPL which means that all software which uses =
modeling has to be GPL. (Is yours also?) Although, we support open =
software (my coworker just wrote a GTK grid with python bindings, open =
for everyone), our actual policy is that all libs should be open, but =
some productivity tools may be comercial. The problem is to recover the =
investment to create basic technologies.

Beside the GPL, are there other ways to have a comercial tool (may be =
open source) that includes modeling? (I think either of a comercial =
licence for modeling, or a licence type LGPL or something else.)

With best regards,
Erny

Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Sebastien B. <sbi...@us...>]

        Hi Erny and all,

  I do understand the point: the GPL can be really annoying in a
commercial environment --and in some other situations as well, esp. when
micing different licenses together.  Interestingly, I've been discussing
this point with someone else on a private conversation for a few days,
someone who basically wanted to know why I chose GPL.  I won't go into
much details now, esp. because I've no time today, but at least I
wanted to say I'm seriously considering switching from GPL to a more
permissive, python-like license.

  So: I'd like to hear from any of you here who thinks the GPL is or
  could be a problem for you/your company/your activity (or maybe think
  the opposite) --since this has been put on my list and that I plan to
  make up my mind soon, it's probably time to speak loud and clear ;)

-- S=E9bastien.


"Ernesto Revilla" <er...@si...> wrote:
> Dear Sebasti=E9n,
>=20
> actually, your framework is GPL which means that all software which
> uses modeling has to be GPL. (Is yours also?) Although, we support
> open software (my coworker just wrote a GTK grid with python bindings,
> open for everyone), our actual policy is that all libs should be open,
> but some productivity tools may be comercial. The problem is to
> recover the investment to create basic technologies.
>=20
> Beside the GPL, are there other ways to have a comercial tool (may be
> open source) that includes modeling? (I think either of a comercial
> licence for modeling, or a licence type LGPL or something else.)
>=20
> With best regards,
> Erny

Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Marcos D. <md...@vi...>]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Sebastien Bigaret wrote:
>   So: I'd like to hear from any of you here who thinks the GPL is or
>   could be a problem for you/your company/your activity (or maybe think
>   the opposite) --since this has been put on my list and that I plan to
>   make up my mind soon, it's probably time to speak loud and clear ;)

    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.

Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Matthew P. <pa...@dm...>]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Marcos Dione wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Sebastien Bigaret wrote:
> >   So: I'd like to hear from any of you here who thinks the GPL is or
> >   could be a problem for you/your company/your activity (or maybe think
> >   the opposite) --since this has been put on my list and that I plan to
> >   make up my mind soon, it's probably time to speak loud and clear ;)
>
>     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 would definitely caution against writing your own license because of the
legal complexities involved.  The LGPL would, as I understand it, allow
Modeling to be used in commercial apps while insisting that Modeling
itself remain open source.  Apparently the BSD license would allow
this as well. Eric Raymond has a good chapter on the issues
in the Art of Unix Programming:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch16s07.html

As a matter of opinion, either LGPL or GPL would work for me.

						Matt

Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Yannick G. <ygi...@yg...>]

=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-----

Re: [Modeling-users] Licence issues

[Federico H. <fh...@vi...>]

On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 10:51, Yannick Gingras wrote:
> If that matter, my vote it to keep it GPL, it deserve it.

I'm with Yannick!

	Fede

--=20
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key BD02C6E0
Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21  ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02 C6E0