For the particular project I'm involved I actually would like the idea that the largest possible group could make use of the code base - including corporations who may not want to contribute their changes back as open source.
The only concern I still have is - the basic idea behind the project is really the definition of the intents. As long as these are defined in the same way, different applications, commercial or non-commercial, can work seemlessly together. If a small corporation thinks they are smarter, and change the default intent definitions, that's not a big concern, because then their application would not be compatible to (hopefully) lots of free software that could be available eventually. My concern is if a corporation with big influence, like a mobile phone producer, took our software and changed the intent definitions before redistributing it. Then our free software would no longer be compatible with their preinstalled derivative... If they had lots of power, they could easily push out open contributions from further development... (it may be an unlikely scenario, but still...) Is there a way to protect against only changing intent definitions in redistributed software (which affects only a handful of classes), but keep the license otherwise very relaxed (meaning people can modify and sell the rest as closed source as they desire)? Peli http://www.openintents.org On Apr 1, 5:32 pm, Steve918 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason corporations are faster to take up Apache licensing has > everything to do with the fact that it benefits them the most. If the > author of a program chooses dual licensing, so what. They wrote the > program, if anyone deserves to benefit from it, it should be the > author of the program. The fact is everyone still wins with dual > licensing. You STILL get the source code of the program and you can > STILL recompile it, change it, and redistribute it under the GPL. > > Apache V2, does not protect you against people distributing your > application or portions of it as closed source and using it for their > benefit without giving anything back to you or the community. > Apache V2, does not protect you against Tivoisation and DRM. > > GPL V3, protects the software authors freedoms and the freedoms of the > end users. > > If you want your applications to remain open-source and to always be > distributed as such the GPL V3 is they only way to ensure it is so. > > On Apr 1, 10:02 am, "Shane Isbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > HI Peli, > > > If you GPLed your code then it would mean that anyone distributing one of > > your intents would also have to GPL their code, and so on, as GPL is viral. > > ASLv2 is not. ASL tends to drive faster adoption rates, particularly among > > corporations, but then those same corporations may choose to modify, > > distribute your code without making their own modifications open-source. > > Developers, however, can GPL their code and then turn around and sell a > > commerical license, thus benefiting themselves financially, without giving > > their community the same rights, so its not as pure as it always seem. > > > Personally, I'm hoping to see most apps follow Google's lead and use ASLv2, > > otherwise we would end up in a situation where all the ASL licensed apps > > would have to stand clear of any GPL distributions. If everyone GPLed their > > code and didn't do the dual licensing, well that would be a different story. > > > Shane > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Peli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Steven, > > > > I read your post, but it was not completely obvious to me what exactly > > > you wanted to point out: > > > * Why should developers use GPL v3 rather than GPL v2? > > > or > > > * Why should developers use GPL rather than Apache 2 license? > > > > And what could potentially happen if developers choose the Apache 2 > > > license instead of GPL v3? Since I'm part of an open source project, > > > I'd be highly interested in the main motivations behind your > > > suggestion. > > > > from your blog: > > > "So if you release your application under other open source licenses > > > (including GPL V2), services providers and device manufactures have no > > > legal obligation to allow unsigned/modified versions of you > > > application to run on their devices. They can just take your > > > application and your freedom along with it." > > > > What does this mean? Do they have the legal obligation to allow your > > > application if one uses GPL v3? I'm not sure I follow your point here > > > completely... > > > > Peli > > > > On Apr 1, 8:45 am, Zach Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I second that! GPL v2 or v3 will help keep the community thriving. > > > > > -- > > > > > Zach Hobbs > > > > HelloAndroid.com > > > > Android OS news, tutorials, downloads > > > > > On Monday 31 March 2008 23:55:22 Steve918 wrote: > > > > > > I recently published a post discussing reasons why GPL V3 is the > > > > > obvious choice for Android Developers. Comments would be greatly > > > > > appreciated. > > > > > >http://steven.bitsetters.com/articles/2008/03/31/keeping-googles-andr. > > > .. > > > > >nest/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Announcing the new M5 SDK! http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2008/02/android-sdk-m5-rc14-now-available.html For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
