Menu
▾
▴
wxdevide-devs — Developer discussion for the project.
You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2008 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(60) |
Nov
|
Dec
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 |
Jan
(5) |
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
(2) |
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(19) |
Aug
(8) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
(16) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
|
| 2010 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(2) |
May
(4) |
Jun
|
Jul
(4) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(4) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| 2011 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(3) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
|
Dec
(2) |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-14 01:55:05
|
>From the Artistic license: (2) You may Distribute verbatim copies of the Source form of the Standard Version of this Package in any medium without restriction, *either gratis or for a Distributor Fee*, provided that you duplicate all of the original copyright notices and associated disclaimers. At your discretion, such verbatim copies may or may not include a Compiled form of the Package. So Mr. Creep can take our binaries or even our source code, burn them to a CD, and charge $100,000 per copy if he wants. All without our permission. At least with LGPL/wxWidgets license, you can only charge for the binaries (and you must provide the source code for free-- even if the user doesn't want the binary). -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote: > Arrghh! > > While I was exited about it too, I've found that the people behind this > license doesn't recomend it for software: > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ > > *Can I use a Creative Commons license for software? > > We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for > software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software > licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made > available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source > Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or > object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with > software.* > > So I guess we shouldn't :( > > Let's consider the Artistic License as my last alternative, since I've > heard it is some sort of equivalent to Creative Commons. It's used in a > wxWidgets product by the way: > > http://www.pgadmin.org/ > > > > --- El *lun 13-oct-08, Sof.T <so...@ti...>* escribió: > > De: Sof.T <so...@ti...> > Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern > A: re...@al... > Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> > Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 6:11 pm > > > This sounds pretty good to me, I guess to define core developer we could > limit it to those who are listed as developers on the sourceforge project > page since they need to be accepted by us to get added. We then need rules > as to how much contribution someone needs to make to the project to be > considered for addition. > > > > Sof.T > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Tony Reina [mailto:tb...@gm...] > *Sent:* 13 October 2008 22:34 > *To:* nab...@ya... > *Cc:* wxDevIde Developers > *Subject:* Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern > > > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ > > Maybe this is compatible with what everyone wants?? > > It says that you can't profit off of the work UNLESS the author grants you > specific permission to do so. > > I'm assuming that by "author" we mean the core developers? Otherwise, > anyone who adds a line of source code might claim to have the right to grant > alternate copyright arrangements. For example, if Will "Creep" Gaits or > Esteban "Banana" Works adds a comment line to the source code, then he could > claim to be an author. > > Note, however, that I'm a little hesitant about this since it means we'll > really need to come up with rules about who are core developers and how you > can be added/dropped as a core developer. But, as I mentioned before, the > fact that I'm not 100% happy with the license probably means it's a good > compromise. > > -Tony > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote: > > Sure. Go ahead and see if you can find something that's suitable. > > My brother always says that, in business, the best deal is the one where > both parties feel that they've been screwed. So, in other words, I doubt > we'll find something that we'll all 100% agree on, but it's worth trying to > find something that we can all 80-90% agree on. > > -Tony > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...> > wrote: > > Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here. > > I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the > contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be > interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non > contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their > work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind. > > As I said, my idea would be: > > 1- Open Source the project. > > 2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, *but > only with our approval*. If any project member wants to sell something > too, good for him/her. > > 3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to > change their respective licenses (so not GPL). > > As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no > license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a > little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give > it another chance before voting final. > > If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you > still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. > > > > > --- El *lun **13-oct-08**, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...>* escribió: > > De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> > Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern > A: re...@al... > Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> > Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am > > Tony Reina wrote: > > > > > > > > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project > > > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I > > > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code > > > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it > well > > > good for them. > > > > > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > > > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > > > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). > > > > OK beaten into submission. > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code > > > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can > > > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from > > > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, > > > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the > > > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix > > > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > > > > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > > > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > > > come up with a > custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > > > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > > > actually tested. > > > > > > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > > > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > > > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > > > business. ;>) > > > > > > > Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets > > License. > > > > Mal > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 worldhttp://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > > _______________________________________________ > Wxdevide-devs mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > |
|
From: Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...> - 2008-10-14 01:27:28
|
Arrghh!While I was exited about it too, I've found that the people behind this license doesn't recomend it for software:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQCan I use a Creative Commons license for software? We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. So I guess we shouldn't :(Let's consider the Artistic License as my last alternative, since I've heard it is some sort of equivalent to Creative Commons. It's used in a wxWidgets product by the way:http://www.pgadmin.org/ --- El lun 13-oct-08, Sof.T <so...@ti...> escribió: De: Sof.T <so...@ti...> Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern A: re...@al... Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 6:11 pm This sounds pretty good to me, I guess to define core developer we could limit it to those who are listed as developers on the sourceforge project page since they need to be accepted by us to get added. We then need rules as to how much contribution someone needs to make to the project to be considered for addition. Sof.T -----Original Message----- From: Tony Reina [mailto:tb...@gm...] Sent: 13 October 2008 22:34 To: nab...@ya... Cc: wxDevIde Developers Subject: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Maybe this is compatible with what everyone wants?? It says that you can't profit off of the work UNLESS the author grants you specific permission to do so. I'm assuming that by "author" we mean the core developers? Otherwise, anyone who adds a line of source code might claim to have the right to grant alternate copyright arrangements. For example, if Will "Creep" Gaits or Esteban "Banana" Works adds a comment line to the source code, then he could claim to be an author. Note, however, that I'm a little hesitant about this since it means we'll really need to come up with rules about who are core developers and how you can be added/dropped as a core developer. But, as I mentioned before, the fact that I'm not 100% happy with the license probably means it's a good compromise. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote: Sure. Go ahead and see if you can find something that's suitable. My brother always says that, in business, the best deal is the one where both parties feel that they've been screwed. So, in other words, I doubt we'll find something that we'll all 100% agree on, but it's worth trying to find something that we can all 80-90% agree on. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...> wrote: Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here. I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind. As I said, my idea would be: 1- Open Source the project. 2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, but only with our approval. If any project member wants to sell something too, good for him/her. 3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to change their respective licenses (so not GPL). As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give it another chance before voting final. If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. --- El lun 13-oct-08, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> escribió: De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern A: re...@al... Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am Tony Reina wrote:>>> For me personally I have no concerns what license the project> remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I> have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code> for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well> good for them.>> I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). OK beaten into submission. >>> Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code> open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can> compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from> the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain,> except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the> majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix> bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours.>> I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > actually tested.>> So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > business. ;>)> Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets License. Mal -------------------------------------------------------------------------This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer'schallengeBuild the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win greatprizesGrand 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 lis...@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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ |
|
From: Sof.T <so...@ti...> - 2008-10-13 23:11:29
|
This sounds pretty good to me, I guess to define core developer we could limit it to those who are listed as developers on the sourceforge project page since they need to be accepted by us to get added. We then need rules as to how much contribution someone needs to make to the project to be considered for addition. Sof.T -----Original Message----- From: Tony Reina [mailto:tb...@gm...] Sent: 13 October 2008 22:34 To: nab...@ya... Cc: wxDevIde Developers Subject: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Maybe this is compatible with what everyone wants?? It says that you can't profit off of the work UNLESS the author grants you specific permission to do so. I'm assuming that by "author" we mean the core developers? Otherwise, anyone who adds a line of source code might claim to have the right to grant alternate copyright arrangements. For example, if Will "Creep" Gaits or Esteban "Banana" Works adds a comment line to the source code, then he could claim to be an author. Note, however, that I'm a little hesitant about this since it means we'll really need to come up with rules about who are core developers and how you can be added/dropped as a core developer. But, as I mentioned before, the fact that I'm not 100% happy with the license probably means it's a good compromise. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote: Sure. Go ahead and see if you can find something that's suitable. My brother always says that, in business, the best deal is the one where both parties feel that they've been screwed. So, in other words, I doubt we'll find something that we'll all 100% agree on, but it's worth trying to find something that we can all 80-90% agree on. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...> wrote: Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here. I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind. As I said, my idea would be: 1- Open Source the project. 2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, but only with our approval. If any project member wants to sell something too, good for him/her. 3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to change their respective licenses (so not GPL). As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give it another chance before voting final. If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. --- El lun 13-oct-08, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> escribió: De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern A: re...@al... Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am Tony Reina wrote: > > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well > good for them. > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). OK beaten into submission. > > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > actually tested. > > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > business. ;>) > Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets License. Mal ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 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 <http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/> &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/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - 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 <http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/> &url=/ _______________________________________________ Wxdevide-devs mailing list Wxd...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 22:43:08
|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Maybe this is compatible with what everyone wants?? It says that you can't profit off of the work UNLESS the author grants you specific permission to do so. I'm assuming that by "author" we mean the core developers? Otherwise, anyone who adds a line of source code might claim to have the right to grant alternate copyright arrangements. For example, if Will "Creep" Gaits or Esteban "Banana" Works adds a comment line to the source code, then he could claim to be an author. Note, however, that I'm a little hesitant about this since it means we'll really need to come up with rules about who are core developers and how you can be added/dropped as a core developer. But, as I mentioned before, the fact that I'm not 100% happy with the license probably means it's a good compromise. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> wrote: > Sure. Go ahead and see if you can find something that's suitable. > > My brother always says that, in business, the best deal is the one where > both parties feel that they've been screwed. So, in other words, I doubt > we'll find something that we'll all 100% agree on, but it's worth trying to > find something that we can all 80-90% agree on. > > -Tony > > > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote: > >> Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here. >> >> I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the >> contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be >> interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non >> contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their >> work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind. >> >> As I said, my idea would be: >> >> 1- Open Source the project. >> >> 2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, *but >> only with our approval*. If any project member wants to sell something >> too, good for him/her. >> >> 3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to >> change their respective licenses (so not GPL). >> >> As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no >> license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a >> little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give >> it another chance before voting final. >> >> If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you >> still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. >> >> >> >> --- El *lun 13-oct-08, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...>* escribió: >> >> De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> >> Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern >> A: re...@al... >> Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> >> Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am >> >> Tony Reina wrote: >> > >> > >> > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project >> > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I >> > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code >> > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well >> > good for them. >> > >> > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my >> > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I >> > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). >> >> OK beaten into submission. >> >> > >> > >> > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code >> > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can >> > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from >> > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, >> > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the >> > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix >> > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. >> > >> > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want >> > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to >> > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to >> > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were >> > actually tested. >> > >> > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling >> > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for >> > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of >> > business. ;>) >> > >> >> Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets >> License. >> >> Mal >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 worldhttp://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Wxdevide-devs mailing lis...@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/ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> > |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 18:29:33
|
Sure. Go ahead and see if you can find something that's suitable. My brother always says that, in business, the best deal is the one where both parties feel that they've been screwed. So, in other words, I doubt we'll find something that we'll all 100% agree on, but it's worth trying to find something that we can all 80-90% agree on. -Tony On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote: > Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here. > > I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the > contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be > interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non > contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their > work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind. > > As I said, my idea would be: > > 1- Open Source the project. > > 2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, *but > only with our approval*. If any project member wants to sell something > too, good for him/her. > > 3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to > change their respective licenses (so not GPL). > > As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no > license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a > little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give > it another chance before voting final. > > If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you > still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. > > > > --- El *lun 13-oct-08, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...>* escribió: > > De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> > Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern > A: re...@al... > Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> > Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am > > Tony Reina wrote: > > > > > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project > > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I > > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code > > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well > > good for them. > > > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). > > OK beaten into submission. > > > > > > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code > > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can > > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from > > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, > > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the > > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix > > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > > actually tested. > > > > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > > business. ;>) > > > > Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets > License. > > Mal > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 worldhttp://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Wxdevide-devs mailing lis...@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/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > |
|
From: Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...> - 2008-10-13 18:00:41
|
Not to disrupt the issue, but I may actually back Mal's idea here.I'm also for open source here, and while I wouldn't care if any one of the contributors want to make money out of wxDevIDE (I don't think I would be interested on such thing myself), I find it of "bad taste" when some non contributor jerk takes open source software, and sell it as if it was their work. PearPC->CherryOS comes to mind.As I said, my idea would be:1- Open Source the project.2- Let 3rd party people "improve it" and redistribute it. Sell too, but only with our approval. If any project member wants to sell something too, good for him/her.3- Use a license that lets us use 3rd party libraries without having to change their respective licenses (so not GPL).As I understand it, the problem for you guys seem to be that there is no license that complies with all that. Let me research Creative Commons a little more, as mentioned before, I think it works that way. At least give it another chance before voting final.If Creative Commons (or other one) indeed lets us do all that, but you still don't care I would accept wxWidgets license too. --- El lun 13-oct-08, Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> escribió: De: Malcolm Nealon <m.n...@wa...> Asunto: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern A: re...@al... Cc: "wxDevIde Developers" <wxd...@li...> Fecha: lunes, 13 octubre, 2008, 11:47 am Tony Reina wrote: > > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well > good for them. > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). OK beaten into submission. > > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > actually tested. > > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > business. ;>) > Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets License. Mal ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Premios MTV 2008¡En exclusiva! Fotos, nominados, videos, y mucho más! Mira aquí http://mtvla.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Malcolm N. <m.n...@wa...> - 2008-10-13 16:47:46
|
Tony Reina wrote: > > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project > remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I > have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code > for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well > good for them. > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my > code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I > want with my code (Viva Liberte!). OK beaten into submission. > > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code > open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can > compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from > the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, > except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the > majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix > bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want > something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to > come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to > write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were > actually tested. > > So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling > the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for > $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of > business. ;>) > Then I'll side with the majority, so I assume that this means wxWidgets License. Mal |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 16:39:52
|
> > > For me personally I have no concerns what license the project remains under > or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I have never had any > pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code for my own enjoyment. If > someone else makes money out of it well good for them. > > > I agree 100%. In my view, anyone can do anything they want with my code so long as they don't interfere with my ability to do anything I want with my code (Viva Liberte!). > > Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code open, any > changes need to come back to the developers, you can compile the code for > your own use, but any binaries created from the source code cannot be > redistributed for commercial gain, except by the say so of the production > team. Then would enable the majority of end users to do what they want, use > the product, fix bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. > > > I don't know any existing license which does this. If we really want something that will only allow us to make money, then we'd need to come up with a custom license. That would mean we'd need a lawyer to write it. Otherwise, I doubt it would hold up in court if it were actually tested. So my vote is still with keeping the wxWindows licensing and handling the creeps by shaming them publicly. If a creep sells our binaries for $10,000, we can always sell them for $100 and drive him out of business. ;>) -Tony |
|
From: Sof.T <so...@ti...> - 2008-10-13 08:15:41
|
So far Ive remained out of this discussion. I guess this could head towards one of those all night drink sessions with Mal ;-} For me personally I have no concerns what license the project remains under or whether someone runs off and makes a fortune. I have never had any pretensions to be Bill Gates and purely code for my own enjoyment. If someone else makes money out of it well good for them. As I understood it the whole open source issue arose from companies closing the source code to their drivers, etc. If there were bugs then the end user couldnt fix them. That lead to Richard Stallman deciding that open source was needed so the end user could make modifications to the source to adapt the product for their own use and to fix any errors. There was nothing in the original idea that the code could be stolen or that the end user could sell the binaries. Therefore maybe you need a license that makes the source code open, any changes need to come back to the developers, you can compile the code for your own use, but any binaries created from the source code cannot be redistributed for commercial gain, except by the say so of the production team. Then would enable the majority of end users to do what they want, use the product, fix bugs and make changes, but keep the end product as ours. Sof.T -----Original Message----- From: Tony Reina [mailto:tb...@gm...] Sent: 13 October 2008 01:59 To: nab...@ya... Cc: wxd...@li... Subject: Re: [Wxdevide-devs] code license consern 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 <http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/> &url=/ _______________________________________________ Wxdevide-devs mailing list Wxd...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 02:34:35
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licences |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-13 00:58:51
|
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 > > |
|
From: Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...> - 2008-10-13 00:03:10
|
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! Mira aquí http://mtvla.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-12 17:43:20
|
> > 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". > 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). > 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" > 4-...? > > 5-...? > > . > As far as Mal's links about C::B, the guy who hijacked their IDE and sold it as his own would be legally protected if he had made his source code available and acknowledged that he got it from C::B. It's still pretty slimy, but it isn't illegal to sell the binaries. -Tony > . > > . > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > |
|
From: Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...> - 2008-10-12 15:48:50
|
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.Interesting. Let's make a list of things we need from our license, then research if there is one with all that already, or if we need to create one:(Just to be clear, we want to keep or sources open, right? I mean, were are hosted at sourceforge after all :) I for one don't want to be on a closed source project for wxDevIDE)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.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.3- 3rd party code included can remain licensed on it's own terms.4-...?5-...?...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Premios MTV 2008¡En exclusiva! Fotos, nominados, videos, y mucho más! Mira aquí http://mtvla.yahoo.com/ |
|
From: Malcolm N. <m.n...@wa...> - 2008-10-12 08:02:32
|
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 |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 14:53:06
|
That's a valid point. Any source code we used would have to be GPL'd. So Nuklear's XSTC and other wrappers we use would need to be GPL'd too. As far as I understand it, though, if we call a non-GPL'd library with a GPL program we are still ok. The problem only occurs if we try to compile the non-GPL'd library into our GPL sources. So long as the XSTC wrapper is GPL'd the license of the underlying Scintilla library doesn't matter (because we are only calling it at run time). -Tony On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Esteban Aguilar B. <nab...@ya...>wrote: > 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 worldhttp://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > > _______________________________________________ > Wxdevide-devs mailing lis...@li...https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wxdevide-devs > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > |
|
From: Esteban A. B. <nab...@ya...> - 2008-10-10 14:12:43
|
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/ |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 07:00:35
|
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 >> > > |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 03:15:30
|
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 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tony Reina <tb...@gm...> Date: Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM Subject: Licensing To: wxdevcpp developers <wxd...@li...> I was going through the definitions for the various open source licenses and came across a nice video ( http://robinsontechnology.com/blog/2008/06/11/overview-of-open-source-licenses/). This guy is giving a short lecture of the major open source licenses and their differences. The first 20 seconds makes him sound like an idiot, but after that he really does a good job of explaining the licenses. I figured some people might be interested. -Tony |
|
From: Nuklear Z. <nuk...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 02:52:59
|
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 > > |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 02:29:39
|
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 |
|
From: Nuklear Z. <nuk...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 02:21:46
|
one thing not brought up, what about the documentation license? i have noticed that a lot more lately. Nuklear |
|
From: Nuklear Z. <nuk...@gm...> - 2008-10-10 01:25:05
|
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 have seen dual licensing in some projects, like scintilla. and i know many projects use dependencies of several different licenses. (wxWidgets, TinyXML, ...) instead of releasing the whole code base under one license, i propose we split it. what would make the most sense to gain the largest possible audience and still do what we want would seem to be using a the gnu licenses. one can easily use a free software program on a commercial operating system. it is also available to the free software users and is acceptable to open source as well. the worst that would happen is one would have to write a new "front end" to use in their commercial product. (gui). so gnu gpl for the gui and gnu lgpl for the rest. the linking is a little annoying perhaps, but with a little fore though the plugin manager itself could be written to be a shared library anyway. the basic design of the program as been described would work just fine with this model. and other than the gui code, everything is a separate library. that keeps joe hot head from taking easy road and still gives us what we want. i am not very farmiliar with many other licenses, so that is why i suggested those. i do not like gpl3, i'd license with "gpl2 or at your option any other version." what does everyone else think of that? i did a search on sourceforge.net and i did not see anything in the first three pages that was obviously a complete application using the wxWindows license. i searched for "wxWindows license". Nuklear |
|
From: Tony R. <tb...@gm...> - 2008-10-08 15:57:40
|
> > > If you do *.* it will also look at the .wxform files and seriously screw > them up. > > Sure that makes sense. Although, wxform files are really just Delphi files. I was thinking that we would be trying to move the designer file format to something like XML (i.e. the XRC format). If we use XRC for the format, then we could potentially have a method for exporting/importing designer forms to/from other IDEs. -Tony |
|
From: Malcolm N. <m.n...@wa...> - 2008-10-08 06:52:11
|
On 05/10/2008 22:33, Tony Reina wrote: > Agreed. I don't have any problems with these guidelines. The major > thing is to have an Astyle config file in SVN with these settings so > that a developer just has to remember to "astyle.exe -f > wxdevide.config *.*" before committing changes to SVN. > This would be a single batch file containing astyle.exe -f wxdevide.config *.cpp astyle.exe -f wxdevide.config *.h If you do *.* it will also look at the .wxform files and seriously screw them up. Mal |
5 messages has been excluded from this view by a project administrator.
