From: Pablo d. <Pab...@we...> - 2007-01-31 08:04:18
|
Hi all, JD wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:04:28 -0800, yuval levy wrote: >=20 > > How about reconsidering dual licensing, as proposed by > > Erik a few exchanges ago=3F it does not have to be the > > LGPL. > > > I think the starting point for negotiating is the stated copyright > > condition that I read from Daniel and from Pablo that "no dynamic > > linking to their contributed code is allowed". We must respect whateve= r > > condition they set. > >=20 > > Since this condition is a deal-breaker, I kindly ask them and everybod= y > > else to consider an alternative. I am fully aware that it is 100% unde= r > > the control of the individual copyright holder and bow to their > > decision. > >=20 > > How about replacing "no dynamic linking allowed" with something along > > "if a software package that uses the library is distributed under any > > other license than the GPL, the distributor is required to pay X% of t= he > > collected revenue to Y". I think this is an attractive idea, and I would agree to such dual licensi= ng schemes. They can work well (Trolltech is an example). I doubt that such a "general" extension of the license would work in pract= ice. I guess individual contracts need to be made, which is complicated by the = many developers involved in panotools. ciao Pablo =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Viren-Scan f=FCr Ihren PC! Jetzt f=FCr jeden. Sofort, online und kostenlos. Gleich testen! http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/freescan/=3Fmc=3D022222 |