Re: [Wxdevide-devs] Licensing

[Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...>]

The only problem I have with GPL is like with current wx-devcpp: we cannot use non GPL code (let's say, from 3rd parties) compiled in the same project.. sometimes that's a pain in the ass. Sure, most people ignore this (several linux distributions for example), but if you want to be 100% license clean here you have to respect GPL to the letter.

--- El vie 10-oct-08, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> escribió:
De: Tony Reina <tb...@gm...>
Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] Licensing
A: "Nuklear Zelph" <nuk...@gm...>, "wxdevide-devs" <wxd...@li...>
Fecha: viernes, 10 octubre, 2008, 2:00 am

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



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's
challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great
prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/_______________________________________________
Wxdevide-devs mailing list
Wxd...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
¡Todo sobre Amor y Sexo!
La guía completa para tu vida en Mujer de Hoy.                       
http://mujerdehoy.telemundo.yahoo.com/