Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern

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

Ok. I understand your definition now of a derivative work.

Here's another scenario that we could run into.

Let's say Will Gaits loves wxDevIDE and wants to make his own version. Since
we are going to have things modularized, he decides to just replace one
module (e.g. the text editor) with his own code. So he's not changing our
source code, he's instead just dropping one of our modules and using the API
to access the main IDE thread and other modules from his own module.

Can Will distribute his module in his own license?

If Will's company, MacroHard, wants to sell the binaries of his "new" IDE,
could he?

I mean, in one case, we seem to be saying that 3rd party code (as you define
it) could be licensed differently from us; but, at the same time, you are
saying that no one could profit on it. Doesn't that restrict the license
Will could use?

I'm just trying to make sure that we are thinking this through thoroughly.
It still seems to be a bit muddled and conflicted.

I can say that my preferences are that:
(1) the license is open source (so we can't be locked out of our own code)
(2) if someone else wants to change the code, they can license it as they
want
(3) you can charge for binaries

I know that #3 is a sticking point for others, but if no one can charge for
binaries, then that probably includes us as well. I mean, we aren't a
company. So if Esteban wanted to take the source code, make his own flavor
of wxDevIDE, and sell it, then would that be legal? I mean as I understand
it, if the license is source code, then the work we contribute to the
project is no longer "ours" but rather is "the project's". Even if all core
developers gave Esteban permission to sell his version, I'm not sure we'd
have the legal ability to do so. Instead, the license itself would dictate
what could and could not be done. That's why I'm glad we are really thinking
about this seriously.

As far as the "creep" scenario (as seen with the Code::Blocks ripoff), in my
opinion it's a "tempest in a teapot". The 15-year old poser who is selling
this really isn't going to become a millionaire off of it. I mean, anyone
who uses IDEs is going to be savvy enough to realize that they don't have to
pay for the IDE if they don't want to.


-Tony


On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote:

>
> *
>> *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *1- We need a license that states that all derivative work needs to have
>> the original sources open, and prominently acknowledge the existence of the
>> original project (we) and link to us.*
>> * *
>
> *
> **That's GPL. Everything that touches GPL code needs to be GPL. It's why
> they call it "GPL poisoning".*
>
> Maybe that's how "derivative work" is commonly defined, but what I'm
> refering to here would be "*code that depends in some way or another in
> our code*"; I've called it derivative code for lack of a better term.
> Let's make an example: the library FastMM4 does not depend in any way in our
> code to work,... that's not "derivative work", so it could remain licensed
> on it's original terms (in that special license we are looking for), even if
> we use it in our project... GPL doesn't permit this; if our project is
> GPL'ed we cannot compile both and distribute them togheter.
> If someone takes wxDevIDE, changes the icons and recompile it with a
> different name, that would be *derivative work* under my definition...
> then that would be required to have the same license terms as our work.
>
>>  *2- None of the derivative work can be reselled without the explicit
>> concent of the original autors or the current project administrators. We can
>> open it up for reselling at some point if the project seems to be abandoned
>> in terms of improvements.*
>> * *
>
> *
> **That one is pretty difficult to do outside of a closed source license. Even
> with GPL, a user may take the original source code, build it (without
> modifications), and sell the binaries for millions of dollars. The point of
> GPL is that he can't sell the source code (and must give it away freely to
> anyone who wants it).*
>
> But that's because GPL explicitly permits that. That's why I'm saying that
> we would need a different license if we wanted that. I guess there should be
> some license with those terms (of top of my head I think Creative Commons
> have some options in that regard). Note that I'm not saying that that makes
> it any more easy or hard to stop someone from breaking the license... the
> point here is that the correct license will give us the legal base to
> prosecute someone legally in case that our license were abused.
>
>
>> *3- 3rd party code included can remain licensed on it's own terms.*
>>
> *
> **You've just contradicted requirement #1. 3rd party code would be
> considered a "derivative work"*
>
> Not using my definition of *derivative work*. By 3rd party code here I'm
> refering, again, to code that doesn't depend on our's (Jedi Libraries for
> example). Sorry for not being clear.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Premios MTV 2008
> ¡En exclusiva! Fotos, nominados, videos, y mucho más!br>Mira aquí
> http://mtvla.yahoo.com/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>