Re: [Opensync-users] Libsyncml

[Armin B. <arm...@de...>]

Helge Hess wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:20, Armin Bauer wrote:
>
>> the only thing i used is the libsyncml project space, not the code. So
>> far all code in the libsyncml library is writen by myself.
>
>
> OK, I misunderstood that.
>
>> I choose the GPL for a simple reason: I dont want that the library is
>> used for a commercial product without the duty to return something to
>> the community which could either be open sourcing their own code (so
>> that i can be linked against GPL code) or by buying a commercial license.
>
>
> You probably meant proprietary, not commercial. If the proprietary
> product improves the library itself it needs to deliver the bugfixes and
> enhancement to that even with LGPL. And increasing the user base for the
> library is IMHO a good thing (a lot more people can use your library if
> its LGPL).

Yes i meant propietary of course.

>
> But its your decision, I suppose you plan to make money with commercial
> licenses.

Yes, i think it would not be wise not to try. But if money would come in
from commercial licenses it would definetly be used for the project
(like paying server/bandwidth or buying test equipment etc).

So i think the whole GPL vs. LGPL boils down to the question:
Which is better for the project? A possible higher userbase with
companies using the library which might return something in the future
or a maybe lower userbase but a possible source of income for the project?

>
>> Just out of curiosity, is there anything that would _require_ a LGPL
>> license or is it just that the GPL is too restrictive?
>
>
> Not being able to use the library in a server with a commercial plugin
> at the same time is certainly quite a big drawback.
> I would prefer something LGPL to avoid artificial workarounds for that.
>
> Greets,
>   Helge