Michael Sweet wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Greg Ercolano wrote:
>> ...
>> I'm thinking the examples should probably be 'public domain',
>> to prevent the GPL/LGPL restrictions which require 'derived works'
>> to be given back to the lib. I can see where pedantic interpretation
>> of the LGPL could prevent someone from copy/pasting an example
>> and building a commercial app around that which would then be
>> subject to legal entanglement of making their commercial
>> 'derivative' work public.
>
> "Public domain" isn't a global concept, so the usual workaround is to use a
> BSD-like license that allows arbitrary usage.
>
> That said, not all of the examples are the kind that I would expect to just
> copy and paste, and in particular I don't want my games (Sudoku and Blocks)
> to be licensed under a BSD (or public domain) license - I already see enough
> commercial distribution of those titles...
Right: I'd differentiate the 'test' directory from the 'examples'
directory;
my suggs are currently only for the 'examples' dir.
And I agree eg. the games should stay GPL/LGPL; those are complete apps.
But possibly in the test directory, apps like test/editor should maybe
be open, since anyone trying to implement a text editor will likely
want to start with that code and modify it.
BSD licenses are common, but they appear to be viral in that the
license insists the BSD header be included in the end user's app.
Which means a commercial app that builds around, say, the native
file chooser demo, would have to have a BSD header in their commercial
code, which would probably make more of a mess than necessary
for the poor programmer having to bounce this requirement off the
company's legal department.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
