On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 22:02 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
> As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing
> stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software:
>
> I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means:
> I am willing to share my ideas (and code for that matter) with people
> interested in it. Im am even willing to give all people the right to
> base their own work on it and/or to modify it to their own liking. All I
> am asking for is that these people share their ideas and code just like
> I did - at least if they distribute their work. Essentially, that's it.
>
> Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression that the GPL serves this
> purpose best - from my point of view at least.
>
> I understand that there are two cases which lead to problems with a GPL
> project, but I believe both cases can be solved:
>
> 1.) You want to use it in an commercial project and can't/don't want to
> share your ideas and code.
>
> Assuming you are not a criminal, you can't include the software or
> derived work into your product - the GPL permits that. But you can
> still license a commercial use with the copyright holder(s) in such
> cases. If you don't share ideas, at least share your money.
>
> 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
> and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>
> I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
> there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>
> To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
> the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>
> So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
> follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
> into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
> willing to change to it.
There's a choice of licenses available that fit a pretty wide range of
goals than an individual might have. Now, my personal experience have
taught me that you have to always look at the price you pay for your
beliefs. For me it boils down to (in the order of relationship):
* GPL severely reduces the applicability of the code that I'm
producing. One major consequence of that is my code is not
"taken places". The sheer pleasure of seeing your name on
the About/License dialog of the iPhone/Windows (and BSD makes them
do that if they use your code) is much more important to me
than the closed sourced nature of the device or an application
that uses my code.
* Volume drives value. If your code is "taken places" somehow the
stream of ideas, offers, etc. follows. In fact, I'd say if your
code is *not* widespread because of the licensing issues, you
have less of a chance to collaborate on it with somebody.
* Which bring us to the final point -- if you stuff is good idea
folks who want it are likely to re-implement it no matter what.
They'd rather not waste their time and take it from you, but if
your licensing doesn't allow them to -- they will. At that point
you are no longer the host of the party you are standing in line
withe everybody else to be let in. Case in point: ZFS on Linux.
These three things tilt me strongly in favor of BSD. Your mileage may
vary, of course.
Oh, and here's one final point: it seems to me that (at least!) LGPL
would be as good for your intended purposes as GPL is, without the nasty
side-effects.
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Arguably, the "lets share things and figure out how to
profit later" model could be blamed for Sun's performance as of late.
I'm not a businessman I wouldn't know. What I know though, is that
it makes me stick with the company and refuse Google interviews
and things like that. Somehow it just feels good. I don't know
any other place where the same level of transparency and openness
would be possible (if you do -- let me know ;-)).
