On May 14, 8:05 pm, Chris Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I read the previous comments correctly the potential move to GPL is > driven from two main factors, extJS licence and lack of community > involvement. > > From what I read, the extJS GPL licence may well be the overall > deciding factor.
Well the extJS licensing changes and their reasons for doing so made us look hard at our current circumstances. The outcome of extJS's exception clauses is unlikely to affect our decision either way. > I am still confused by what is and is not covered by the proposed GPL > licence. Is it the content of plugins, webskin, packages (including > type and rules etc.). Some modifications are based on other third > party software that could not be made public. Basically we will not distribute anything that does not comply with the distribution requirements of GPL -- that's pretty easy. Unless we introduce an exception to the license, everything you build on top of FarCry GPL would also be distributed under GPL. If we go ahead we would more than likely introduce an exception clearly excluding anything to do with a graphic theme for a website. If you have requirements that prohibit distribution under the terms of the GPL, you would be able to purchase a Commercial License. > Also on a server with multiple Farcry sites running, some V3 and some > V4, I would probably have to hold back from upgrading to V5 unless I > can get any existing clients using V4 to agree to the licence change > to GPL as these existing sites cannot be run on the same server as a > V5 site unless I have to go for the webroot installation method. Running different version of FarCry within the one CF instance is problematic -- but obviously nothing to do with the license. It's likely that most clients in a shared hosting environment would be unaffected by the introduction of GPL. Are they really wanting to distribute their changes? Would anyone want to see them if they did? > I am not against the licence change, as there is still the choice of > GPL or Commercial licences, but until we know more about potential > costs of commercial developer licences it is difficult to know what > impact the commercial licence would have. Our experience is that few people have actually read the CPL. In all likelihood a change to GPL will have little or no impact. The Commercial License is relevant for people who have closed-source code they must protect (or at least feel they must), and/or people who want to support the FarCry development team through the purchase of a license. We are discussing potential pricing and model for the license (eg. per server, per domain, whatever) with potential partners. If anyone is interested in being a partner then please contact me directly. > Is there an option for Daemon to offer a Commercial Developer Licence > in exchange for that developers community contribution? Just thought > that this might encourage the developers who are more likely to fall > into the distribution of code issue are also more likely to have more > code to offer. This way a smaller selected set of modules are released > to the community instead of releasing everything whether it is useful > to the community or not. As far as we can see there is no need for such a license. The only reason a developer license would be necessary is for the potential development of "commercial" plugins by third-parties. This is something we are investigating -- however, I would note that currently under the CPL there are no readily available commercial plugins except Daemon's. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
