Oh man. So over time, as more GPL'd drivers are written, the very
purpose of GDAL gets watered down. It's not like people are going to
develop MIT-licenced drivers if they see an existing GPL driver that
does the job. At the very least, the motivation will be blunted.
The whole reason I went with GDAL was that it was reasonable in regards
to commercial devs. Now there's going to be a situation where they get
increasingly treated as second-class citizens.
It's unreasonable to disclose a large application just because drivers
are GPL'd. It should be submission policy to GDAL that they're LGPL'd.
Frank's gone to the trouble of creating an environment that is
commercial agnostic, and now it's being undone.
Ray
On 1/31/2011 10:49 PM, strk wrote:
You can include the drivers, and your application can be commercial.
Only, you have to give your customers the rights to get your
application's source code, to modify it and to redistribute it.
If you don't want to do that, ask the GPL driver copyright holders
if they agree on you putting the code they allowed you to use,
look at, modify and distribute into something they can NOT look at,
modify or distribute.
Sounds kind of unfair to me, but they may have a different opinion
(or business plan) on the matter.
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
