Re: [Wxdevide-devs] Licensing

[Tony R. <tb...@gm...>]

I don't think it is much of a problem, but I'd love to hear what others
think regarding it.

I am not a lawyer so I can't speak definitively. However, this page
http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/newlicen.htm gives insight into the license.
Note that the only difference between wxWindows license and LGPL is that
"binary forms may be distributed on the user's ow terms". As I understand
it, this means that Mr. Creep could take a binary (i.e. executable) and sell
it as a closed source product (which is what you didn't want). However, our
source code would remain ours and would still be free for us and others to
use. That is, Mr. Creep could never claim ownership of the source code, just
the binary code.

Trying to create an analogy: If we were making a new car, the license would
say that we own the design of the car, but have chosen to make it
readable/accessible to anyone. If someone wants to improve on our design, he
may do so. He can keep his improvements to himself or he can give them back
to us (at which time they come under our license). He can use our designs to
make his own car and sell it for whatever he wants. But, he can't prevent us
from doing the same.

Now, of course, with GPL, you go one step further. Mr. Creep can sell his
modified car for whatever he wants, BUT he has to give the modified design
back to us for free. So, getting back to the real world, Mr. Creep would
have to give his modified source code back to our project (at which time it
would be property of the project). He has no choice in this and we could
take him to court (and win) if we could prove he was using our GPL'd source
code in that way. However, he could still sell his custom cars/binaries for
whatever he wants and wouldn't have to share a dime of that with us.

So, if you wanted to provide the safest license, I would say we should make
everything GPL. Since we are using dynamic modules (i.e. separate
executables that cooperate via an API at runtime), then Mr. Creep could
replace one of our modules with his own code and it'd be legal. However, the
replacement module would have to be 100% his code. If he modified our module
and called it "his", then he'd be violating the license. However, just
interacting with our modules at runtime via an API is never a problem for
any license. So, in a sense, we can GPL everything and still have a
commercial-friendly IDE due to the nature of our architecture.

-Tony


On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Nuklear Zelph <nuk...@gm...>wrote:

> yes that makes sense. i was hoping to make half legit people less tempted
> to become a creep and that sort of thing. if anything in this universe was
> creep proof, don't think we'd live in a world very similar to this one.
>
> so you do not think this is an issue? does the creep get away with it in a
> court? i guess that question directs from "not being blocked out of our own
> project". i just never happened upon an application with wxWindows license,
> so i wondered if the creep bit would be legit in a court.
>
> i guess if you don't think it is an issue then i don't. i just don't want
> mr. creep to get away with it in the eyes of the court is all i am concerned
> about.
>
> Nuklear
>
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote:
>
>> Here's the video I was talking about. I think the guy really does a good
>> job of explaining the major licenses out there. (
>> http://robinsontechnology.com/blog/2008/06/11/overview-of-open-source-licenses/).
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear though: nothing is creep-proof. With a pure GPL license,
>> the creep can still make an executable of the IDE, burn it to a disk, and
>> sell it for $1 million per copy. The only thing that is required is that he
>> make it clear that the source code is GPL'd and that the buyer can get a
>> copy of the source code if he wants (for free).
>>
>> So my point is that even with the most open-source of the licenses, a true
>> creep can make money off of us. In my opinion, the real point of licensing
>> is to make sure that the creep can't claim that the source code is now his
>> property and block us out of our own project.
>>
>> -Tony
>>
>
>