Regarding the GPL for mixed GPL and Commercial usage, this is from the GNU.org site FAQ:
/snip "I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? (#NoMilitary <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary>) No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user." /end Just trying to wrap my head around these things.... CERN seems to have hashed some of this stuff out is why I have mentioned it. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello list, > > Le 2013-01-04 20:59, Timothy Normand Miller a écrit : > > I like the GPL snapshot approach. I'd also like to maintain an AGPLv3 >>> re-licensed forkmirror that includes the full revision history, which >>> will >>> put some nice tight bounds around if anything gpl-only ever >>> actually gets into downstream forks. >>> >> That sounds good to me. What does AGPL add to/remove from the GPL? >> > > This "AGPL" for hardware looks like a joke but it's a harmless and > protective move > that I took for the YASEP project. > > The situation being that just as "hardware" turns into "software" > (gates are written in HDL), software is increasingly "networked", > turned into web apps, where they can potentially be held hostage > (in pure GPL world) by the service provider, who can tweak the "software" > and not have to redistribute his changes. > > the Affero clause is simple : if you use the code on a network, > you have to provide a way to access and redistribute the code that > you use, for example by providing a direct link to the source code. > > Simple. It adds a new distribution method to the existing requirements > and requests that the running software remains "transparent" (not > a closed black box). It's unrelated to hardware but doesn't harm > and actually can make things easier in the long run. > > Imagine that a company takes the OpenShader design and provides > online services for remote, online simulations. This would force > them to release their own tuned version. Contrast this to the > http://mbed.org/ approach where you buy the cheap board and > have to use their "online compiler" which is crippled and obscure, > forcing you to buy a "full featured" commercial version. > > AGPLv3 is GPLv3 with a network clause, both more handy > and more demanding on a couple of key points. It doesn't harm > hardware projects and closes a hole in the classic GPL. > > I hope it answered your questions. > > YG > > ______________________________**_________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/**mailman/listinfo/open-graphics<http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics> > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) >
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
