Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?

[Francis F. <fra...@vi...>]

When I talked about money and ethics, what I means is yes people can 
make money from it, but if it was somebody who wasn't/didn't collaborate 
to the development of  Php.XPath, this person should find someway to get 
back some reward/money/or anything's else to the developper so that they 
don't get frustrated and that this get back to the person who make money 
with this.

As for relicensing, well I think that this is a long debate, the only 
license that I know that modification has to come back to the developper 
is GPL/LGPL.

The only problem if you take GPL, is that you already grant right, with 
the MPL, to people to mixe your software with non-free (software who are 
not open source, not as in free beer) software, so the only other's 
license who will do that is LGPL. If you do go with GPL, people who use 
your software in closed source, will have to fork (your older version is 
still licensed as  MPL) and continue the development they own way.

Hope it help, if you have any question you have 6 hours left to ask 
them, it's a long week-end here in Canada, so no computer for the next 3 
day's, well until thuesday.


Peter Robins wrote:
> my understanding is the same as yours, Francis, but I would add a 
> couple of comments:
> 
> On Friday 28 Jun 2002 03:40, Francis Fillion wrote:
> 
>>By loking at the gnu.org site 
> 
> 
> i.e. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy. This whole site provides a good 
> summary of all the legal issues, reasonably comprehensible to 
> non-lawyers. license-list.html compares the various licenses.
> 
> 
>>If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from
>>it, it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done.
> 
> 
> There's nothing unethical in this, at least if it's intended as Free 
> Software (if it's conventional copyright material, that's another 
> matter). It's a common misunderstanding that Free Software means free 
> as in beer, whereas it means free as in speech. The GPL was never 
> intended to prevent people from making money from writing software. 
> To quote the GNU site:
> "Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge 
> as much as they wish or can."
> 
> 
>>By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the
>>software and keep the change they made, you should relicence the
>>software to somethings else.
> 
> 
> I agree. I don't understand why phpxpath is MPL and not GPL.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Caffeinated soap. No kidding.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Phpxpath-users mailing list
> Php...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users
> 


-- 
Francis Fillion, BAA SI
Broadcasting live from his linux box.
And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com