> Now, I'm sure any company out there utilziing FarCry probably does > something similar to this scenario, just substitute medical for > whatever. Is the essence in licensing change mean that even though > Company A utilized a public API for a framework, as that's what the > FarCry core has been termed as, these objects would have to be > released under (L)GPL if Company A does not purchase a commercial > license? Is that the essence of what this change would mean to > developers using FarCry to provide solutions to customers using the > same "solutions"?
I think Phil is reiterating what most people seem to be concerned about here. Example: If I make a project folder for a client and in that folder are the contents of files I make/modify for said client, and these are the only files I modify (not actually modifying core or cms plugin files) will I have to share said modifications (or purchase a license)? In this scenario I would most likely be extending the core and/or cms to add/modify metadata in the COAPI or other customizations allowed by the framework and webtop. It sounds like the answer is: "Only if I share the same code with more than one client". If my understanding is correct, then it may leave a lot of grey area (that we just need some clarification for). Let me give a very simple example: Lets say I extend dmProfile to add a photo (in my project files, not modifying core files). Now, lets say I do that for a lot of clients (same modifications). Would I be required to share the code modifications within the project files to the community (both COAPI metadata and webskin changes) or be required to purchase a license ? (I know that is a simple example where I doubt any coder would mind sharing the code... I'm just trying to work with a simple example). If I am incorrect about that scenario, then the only other case I can think of is the more obvious: If I make modifications to the actual core files (or cms plugin files), and I distribute said modifications to more than one client, I am obligated to either purchase a license or distribute the code. In this case, I completely agree and would strongly support the license. However if I need to share any client project files with the community (or purchase a license because I made projects files that I happened to use with more than one client) then I'd need more clarification on the license first and make sure I can convey that to the client beforehand. Now plugins and skeletons... this opens a whole new can of worms. Lately I've been promoting FarCry 5 quite a bit (user group presentations, ColdFusion conferences) and one of the strong selling points I've been telling companies is that both plugins and skeletons allow companies to sell commercial products for the FarCry framework. I'm not saying I've misinformed them (they are well aware that FarCry 5 hasn't been released, thus anything said before it's launch is up for change... including its license). I'm just concerned about how it would effect these scenarios. What should I tell people? If FarCry uses the GPL license moving forward, would anyone selling a plugin or skeleton be required to purchase some type of license? If so, what license (since neither product actually includes core or cms plugin files)? I want to make sure that going forward, I convey the correct message. And finally, my thoughts on the exact license of choice (in this case the GPLv3 (instead of GPLv2)). I'm no lawyer, nor do I claim to comprehend software licensing beyond their basics. But I do recall Linus Torvalds and TiVo speaking out strongly against GPL v3 stating that some of it's restrictions to the company using it (in this case Daemon) was a step backward (and possibly negatively effecting those involved due to some fine print). I believe Linus was saying something to the fact that he would never have Linux move from GPLv2 to GPLv3 due to many of it's restrictions and how it could negatively effect Linux moving forward. If memory serves me correctly TiVo refused to change its license to GPLv3 due to some of the finer print that would restrict the product from doing certain types of future updates (thus negatively effecting both the company (TiVo) and the customer). I'm sure some other expert can correct me on those issues (about GPLv2 vs. GPLv3), but if anything at least do a Google search on GPLV3 and Linus Torvalds and/or Tivo to maybe get a better understanding of the issues (hopefully I'm wrong and we don't have to worry about this). Regards, -- Jeff Coughlin Web Application Developer http://jeffcoughlin.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
