Scott Raney wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Michael Fair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Since we are revisiting this conversation, I have two
> > questions:
> >
> > 1) Whatever happened to our tentative decision to use
> > the Public Domain license?
> > This seems to have everything we are committed to.
> > You can always have a "free" version available to you.
>
> Seems that way to me.
Myself as well, and I have not read any objections
to using a Public Domain license yet.
I don't want to force an outcome here because I believe
these things should be fully discussed so that all parties
can align on the decision. Alignment doesn't necessarily
mean they fully agree, it just means they are willing to
support that decision as the solution of choice.
The only argument I can see against PD is that it leaves
out any requirement to give us credit in anyway. This
may be important to some people. Quite frankly, I would
be willing to ditch the recognition in favor of a more
well known and well understood license. The risk here
is that any company, such as MetaCard, could take our
engine and sell it as their engine and no would know the
difference unless someone found out and said something.
I used MetaCard as the example because it is easy to see
that they have both the motive and the resources to make
such a manouver not because I actually believe they would.
The ability for a company to do this may not be a risk we
are willing to take.
Would someone else who considers the lack of recognition
a significant problem with the Public Domain license
say something on this topic?
Otherwise I move we vote on Public Domain versus
"Rolling our Own" at least this way we can commit
to making our own license, or to using the Public
Domain one.
> > 2) It was never really explained all that well for me why
> > the LGPL was an unacceptable solution for the engine
> > code base.
> Because LGPL includes the requirement that you distribute the library
> separately with object files of your application so that the user can
> relink it.
Ok, that makes sense, and I can definately see that one of our top
requirements is that people be able to create and distribute one
single binary proprietary file.
-- Michael --
