Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern

[Malcolm N. <m.n...@wa...>]

On 10/10/2008 04:52, Nuklear Zelph wrote:
> 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... 
> <mailto:tb...@gm...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Nuklear Zelph
>     <nuk...@gm... <mailto: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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    

I just want a license that means that no-one can take our code, and use 
it to make their own commercial product. I don't want to happen to us 
what is happening to the C::B gang.

http://www.uiversalbuilder.com/

http://forums.codeblocks.org/index.php/topic,9110.0.html

I think we need to protect ourselves from this if possible. I feel that 
we make a free (speech/beer)  product, and that it should be illegal for 
anyone to take the code and create a commercial product based on it. I 
would to see any changes/enhancements that are done by others should be 
returned to the source base.

I think that if it is to be sold, in any way shape or form, that WE 
should be the ones selling it. I wouldn't mind authoring CD's (much as 
Bloodshed do with their vanilla product 
http://bloodshed.net/ordercd.html ) and selling them if it means that we 
see the profit of our work. Granted the distribution of the profits 
would have to be investigated, and the proportion of the money that each 
of us receive (unless we just say that as long as we are "continuously" 
working on the product we just distribute it evenly), but I don't want 
anyone to be able to make money off our hard work, unless WE also see 
some of that money.

NOTE I am not saying we SHOULD sell it, just that if it going to be 
sold, that it should be US who do it, and that we should protect the 
source accordingly.

BTW should we have the chosen license contained in each source file or 
simply mention in each source file what the license is and a link to it?

Best
Mal