I forgot to point out that LGPL V3, is essentially a GPL V3 supplementary license. It retains all of the properties of the GPL V3, but with exceptions for inclusion in closed source applications.
On Apr 1, 12:30 pm, Steve918 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peli, > > You might consider the LGPL. It has copyleft functionality similar to > GPL (source changes have to also be LGPL/GPL), except it makes it > possible to use your libraries in commercial applications. > > On Apr 1, 12:00 pm, Peli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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)? > > > Pelihttp://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
