Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern

[Nuklear Z. <nuk...@gm...>]

i am not stating that we SHOULD use the gpl, but it is an idea, i looked at
the gnu list of licenses and there are quite a few. that creep would not be
too likely to use our code if we licensed the way i mentioned, because he is
being so lazy in the first place.

 i would like to see that license explaination you mentioned.

would the wxWidnows license let a hardcore free software nut use the
software? if not then i guess it would be mute to be concerned. i do like
some of the fsf philiosiphy and i take the "free software supporter", but i
also think they are too overboard. i see things a bit different; if i have
enough "freedom" to create and run my own software on my machine any way i
wish and (while abiding by law) i can destribute that software to someone
else without having to worry about their freedom to use the software, then i
really don't care what my stuff is running on, or what i am running on. i
felt like microsoft moved toward violating that when they released sp2 and
every time i wanted to run my own software i had to click yes. so i moved to
linux. since i cannot find a suitable way past some of the problems i have
run into, i am making my own solution, one being the ide. another is a text
editor if i ever get around to it. lol (wine just doesn't cut it i'm
finding.)

in light of this concern, what licensing do you suggest?

i thought that both having the license in the header of the files and
seperating them in directories would make the best sense. that way if
someone happened upon just one or two files, they'd know what license they
where bound by.

Nuklear

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Nuklear Zelph <nuk...@gm...>wrote:
>
>> i have a concern about the licensing of wxDevIDE. i realized after
>> thinking about it that using the wxWindows license on a full application,
>> not just a library could allow for some hot head to pretty much make their
>> living on our hard work. hack in the designer for a couple hours and they
>> have a new gui that would take minimal code changes and now they have a new
>> commercial product. (along with a graphic designer for new images.)
>>
>
> I'm glad we are revisting the idea of licenses. I think it's critical that
> we get the concerns out in the open.
>
> Yes, the wxWindows license would allow a "hot head" (read "creep" or
> "leech") to take our source code and sell it as their own. In fact, they
> wouldn't even have to change anything to do this. However, they could only
> sell the binary (i.e. the executable). The license would prevent them from
> close sourcing anything but the changes they made. So the basic idea is that
> of, "Why pay for the cow when the milk is free?". That is, why would a user
> pay for the creeps version when they can grab ours for free?
>
> I have no problem with dual sourcing; we would need to include the source
> information in the header of the file to clearly delineate what source code
> is with what license. Or, better yet, we would need to keep them in separate
> subdirectories.
>
> As far as the true open-source license for the "hot head"-proof code, LGPL
> won't work. The wxWindows code is just a more lenient version of LGPL. The
> hot-head could still take LGPL and sell his own version. Instead, the only
> way to do what you want is to make it true GPL and link the modules at
> runtime only (i.e. through the API). So the wxWindows licensed part of the
> source code would be a separate module running in a separate executable than
> the GPL'd code. If the source code mixes other than at linking or execution
> time, then GPL poisons the whole thing (making everything GPL). There's a
> good video lecture on this that I sent out a few weeks ago. I can send it
> again if anyone wants the explanation in a clearer manner than I have
> presented.
>
> -Tony
>
>