Re: [xmlvm-users] Licence issues

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

On 05 Οκτ 2009, at 10:42 π.μ., Sascha Haeberling wrote:

> ...
> Let me emphasize that we are still quite young and we are still in  
> the process to form the OpenSource nature of the project. We are  
> open to other licensing models but so far this seems to be the one  
> that works for most. However, if we see that a lot of the people in  
> our community have problems with it, we can think about it.

I actually agree with that, that's why I started this thread and ask  
for another licensing model, instead of open a new project at  
soureforge and go from then. Forking is something that is killing open  
source sometimes.

...

> 	• If you would like to not disclose the source code of your app we  
> understand that. In this case you can make a contribution to the  
> project. Donation is just one option, you can also submit some code  
> or help XMLVM in other ways (e.g. spread the word). In this case we  
> will grant you a linking exception. With this you don't have to  
> disclose your source code when you generate your app using XMLVM.

Well I don't know if it's me, but now this statement looks more  
promising than this one

>  ... This can be monetary
> funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant
> contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a
> linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your
> project under GPL as well.

which seems to follow the model "(money || hardware) &&  significant  
contribution" :)

Part of the problem I think it is you don't somewhere clearly state  
what exactly you want back.
a) How much money?
b) Code contribution? Is a single patch enough? In any case, giving  
patches back is not only "the right thing", but it's also required!
c) Spread the word, like stating in the about box of the application  
which library we are using?
d) What other forms of contribution do you accept?

GPL with the linking exception is just fine of course, although I  
believe this should be the default (as for example in the Classpath  
project).
Please also note that if someone wants to use your code in a  
commercial project without asking and publish in the AppStore (that's  
all this discussion about, right?), there is NO legal way to find it  
out. You won't have access to the binary which is bounded with Apple's  
license, not to mention how difficult it would be to reverse engineer  
code compiled with -O3 (or better :P )
So everybody could use your code and give back nothing without knowing  
it. It sounds like you punish the people who come here and want to  
follow your model "by  the book".

For me though the problem is not that. The problem is I hesitate to  
invest[1] on a project in which tomorrow someone might slum the door  
on my face. There is a good reason only applications with GPL license  
have survived and blossom and not libraries.


[1] invest as in learning how to use it, expand it, give of course  
code back, advertise it or maybe pay for it, and in general spend time  
with it