Hi all,

I've released my C++ header-only library macstl under the Pixelglow Source
License, which is basically equivalent to a BSD license except for two things:


1. It has the modified files attribution clause from GPL.
2. You can compile sources for 30 days without registering, but if you don't
register you have to delete all compiled sources.

I'm wondering whether given the OSI requirement for "free distribution", this
would be an insurmountable obstacle to getting OSI approval.

I did't think so, because if you get source code, you are free to distribute; if
you get object code, you are free to distribute that as well; but the only
restriction is that you can't convert from source to object i.e. compile unless
you register. IIRC, GPL has a clause which limits its scope to only "copying,
distribution and modification", here I'm assuming compiling != modification.

I'm contemplating switching from this model to a dual-license model a la MySQL
and friends, but from a business POV, I can't see how the open source license
won't cannibalize sales from the commercial license. Any comments?

This may be an interesting point for some of you. macstl only makes sense as a
set of header files, since it relies heavily on C++ inlining and templates as
does Standard C++ Library and some others (boost, Loki etc.). It must be "open"
i.e. in the sense that all code is visible, readable and compilable, otherwise
it simply cannot work (barring code obfuscation techniques). What do some of
these other libraries use as a license, and how do they approach

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Glen Low, Pixelglow Software

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to