As far as i understand it, a user can DO whatever he likes with the
software. Only if you wish to make the software part of your own product
and publish the results to the public, you are forced to either join the
gpl or to ask the original author to get a commercial license.
Thinking of Deng for example, i'm free to use Deng in my website and
even in my customers websites, but when i want to sell Deng as part of a
website creation tool, i need to get a license or join the gpl.
Is this correct?
I other words, using a gpl tool doesn't mean, that the results of the
usage are gpl too.
Ralf.
Luke Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it all depends on what kind of software it is.
For MTASC its good for it to be GPL. Its a standalone tool and Nicolas
has put a lot of effort into and doesn't want others to profit from that
work and wants to retain control. I see it like the other command line
apps you get with Linux. For this type of app GPL makes perfect sense.
For a framework or utility which you want other people to use then BSD
or Apache is best. If ARP was GPL I would guess there would be far fewer
people using to build applications. If you have coded in java you will
know that without Apache it would be much more work to build commercial
applications.
Personally I prefer BSD / Apache. I see open source code reuse in
commercial software as a benefit for everyone.
Many great open source and commercial products wouldn't exist without it.
Choose a license based on what it is you are building, do you want
people to 'use it' or 'build on it' ?
-- luke
On 7/8/05, *Nicolas Cannasse* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> At Slashdot there is an interesting discussion going on about GPL and
> BSD style of licensing os software. In particular i found this
article
> insightful:
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155207&cid=13011294
<http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155207&cid=13011294>
>
> I've never seen it that way. GPL gives the author great power and in
> contrast to my ancient believe, the possibility to make money of his
> work, because people "don't" want to gpl their derivative stuff.
>
> Do you know there any hidden reason for an author, not to use GPL?
Not which I know.
A GPL license give rights to the User of the software only, it says
shortly
"you can use this software for free as long as your software is GPL". It
doesn't remove any right of the author(s) so they're open to
relicense it
and then sell the code under another license to a company. Few years
ago I
did GPL paid development : the company wanted to have GPL software
so users
can use and extend it but they wanted to keep the "basic" version with
unrestricted licensing to include in their products.
That's why IMHO GPL is a good compromise if you want at the same time to
write great software and share it with community and preserve your
rights to
live from the software you're writing. That doesn't means as the
slashdot
post author says that people using BSD license are stupid, it's just
that
they have different goals.
Nicolas
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
_______________________________________________
osflash mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
