Hi Tiago,
Thanks for the quick response.
I see what you are saying and why you chose the GPL. I suppose its just
frustrating to have to re-think (or even think much about!) licensing when
it hasn't been an issue for the bulk of my work.
The bits where I need the much better (and distributed) performance from
your library is a graph generation/storage and analysis service.
It holds a bunch of graphs, quantifies topology on them, and identifies
interesting groups of nodes/edges, returning the results via JSON (the
analysis component needs to be able to run on a different machine from
other bits of it - inputs are also JSON based API). Basically a generic
"graph stuff" network service which implements the bits I need for the rest
of the project.
>From what I understand I can keep the original networkx version of this
service and also develop a graph-tool version, the former staying with a
BSD license and the latter having a GPL license.
However, one of my friends said that many would see that as "cheating" but
it seems to be an intentional provision of the GPLv3 as far as I
understand.
How would you view that scenario? Would you be OK with it or would you be
upset/feel violated? Would your position change if I couldn't keep up
maintaining both versions?
FYI I'm not a developer for any company, infact I'm not even a developer by
trade (ex. pentester now security architect).
Cheers,
Tim
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Tiago Peixoto [via Main discussion list
for the graph-tool project] <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 01.08.2015 19:34, monkeynut wrote:
> > I have now spent weeks reading the FSF, GPLv3, BSD, Boost etc. license
> pages
> > and guides and all sorts of stuff. Plenty of (people claiming to be)
> lawyers
> > who all disagree about what to do and where I stand (most of it
> involving
> > disagreements about derivative works). I would love to just get back to
> > design and development, something I'm actually good at!
>
> The standard interpretation is that derivations (including software that
> uses the library) must be released under the same license, or a
> compatible one. In the case of graph-tool, that would be the GPLv3 or
> any later version.
>
> > The obvious solution would be just to GPL everything but given the
> amount of
> > pain the draconian and anti-liberal GPLv3 has given me, I don't want to
> > inflict that on anyone else in the future if possible. Additionally,
> there
> > are a number of people I would like to work with who would be unable due
> to
> > contractual contraints to risk using my project if it were GPL.
>
> It only inflicts pain if you (or others) desire or leave open the
> possibility of using it as part of proprietary code. It is pretty much
> the whole point of the GPL to make this impossible, or at least very
> difficult.
>
> > Has anybody had a similar situation and how have you resolved it? Can
> > anybody help? Tiago, if you could give me any advice about your
> intentions
> > behind choosing GPLv3 over e.g. LGPL and how my project relates to that
> (is
> > this something we should discuss off-line)?
>
> My choice for using the GPL is the same, I presume, than anyone else
> that leans towards copyleft. I want don't want anyone to be restricted
> to use or modify the library or any variations by any third party.
>
> If you are free to choose your own licence, using anything else means
> you don't care about further restrictions being imposed.
>
> The LGPL makes an exception for just linking (importing) the library,
> which can make strategic sense in some cases, but I judged it not to be
> the case for graph-tool.
>
> Best,
> Tiago
>
> --
> Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[hidden email]
> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4026222&i=0>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> graph-tool mailing list
> [hidden email] <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4026222&i=1>
> http://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
>
> *signature.asc* (836 bytes) Download Attachment
> <http://main-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com/attachment/4026222/0/signature.asc>
> --
> Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected]>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://main-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com/Please-help-with-my-licensing-headache-tp4026221p4026222.html
> To unsubscribe from Please help with my licensing headache!, click here
> <http://main-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=4026221&code=dGltLmFuYWx5c3RAZ21haWwuY29tfDQwMjYyMjF8MTcyNTI2MzkzNQ==>
> .
> NAML
> <http://main-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://main-discussion-list-for-the-graph-tool-project.982480.n3.nabble.com/Please-help-with-my-licensing-headache-tp4026221p4026223.html
Sent from the Main discussion list for the graph-tool project mailing list
archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
graph-tool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
