Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Best, free'ist - open source licence model?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best, free'ist - open source licence model?

 
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
Gordon says...
>
> On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > What's the best.
> >
> > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
> >
> > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
> >
> > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> > proprietory code.
> >
> >

> You are confused.


I don't think so. Perhaps our customers are? Here's just one of
several complaints I've had about our GPL licensing from the past...

"
> OK, it's my understanding that if I changed the licencing to MPL -
> you'd be sweet.


I would. But please understand that I'm not trying to force the issue.
I just wanted to raise the point that you could be locking out a lot of
other developers from using your components. Specifically those who
don't write under the GPL.

Here is a quick section, from the mpl-faq file, I'd like to highlight:
Q: May I combine MPLed code and GPL-licensed code in the same binary?

A: No, unless the MPLed code is also available under the GPL - for
example using the mozilla.org tri-license. This is because the MPL
imposes additional restrictions over and above those imposed by the GPL,
which makes it incompatible with section 6 of GPL version 2, and the
corresponding section in any later versions.

That is why I was only suggesting the Multiple licensing. If you
release the code under both the MPL and the GPL it would then allow the
developers to choose which license they wanted to use you could reach an
even broader range of people. That has it's good and bad points, I
know, but it's only a suggestion. Another license that I generally
favor is the BSD license.
It's probably one of the least restrictive licenses, but it also has it
pros and cons depending on what your trying to do.

I appreciate the fact that you've even taken the time to address this
issue with me. Even if you don't choose to change your licensing it's
refreshing to talk with someone without some kind of licensing prejudice
getting in the way.

The original reason I wrote you was because I noticed this thread on the
CodeGear nntp server: Adrock DateTime Suite Components now under GPL!
it's in the thirdpartytools.general group.
"

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)-september.org>,
(E-Mail Removed), Dave Doe says...
>
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed),
> Gordon says...
> >
> > On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > > What's the best.
> > >
> > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
> > >
> > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
> > >
> > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> > > proprietory code.
> > >
> > >

> > You are confused.

>
> I don't think so. Perhaps our customers are? Here's just one of
> several complaints I've had about our GPL licensing from the past...
>
> "
> > OK, it's my understanding that if I changed the licencing to MPL -
> > you'd be sweet.

>
> I would. But please understand that I'm not trying to force the issue.
> I just wanted to raise the point that you could be locking out a lot of
> other developers from using your components. Specifically those who
> don't write under the GPL.
>
> Here is a quick section, from the mpl-faq file, I'd like to highlight:
> Q: May I combine MPLed code and GPL-licensed code in the same binary?
>
> A: No, unless the MPLed code is also available under the GPL - for
> example using the mozilla.org tri-license. This is because the MPL
> imposes additional restrictions over and above those imposed by the GPL,
> which makes it incompatible with section 6 of GPL version 2, and the
> corresponding section in any later versions.
>
> That is why I was only suggesting the Multiple licensing. If you
> release the code under both the MPL and the GPL it would then allow the
> developers to choose which license they wanted to use you could reach an
> even broader range of people. That has it's good and bad points, I
> know, but it's only a suggestion. Another license that I generally
> favor is the BSD license.
> It's probably one of the least restrictive licenses, but it also has it
> pros and cons depending on what your trying to do.
>
> I appreciate the fact that you've even taken the time to address this
> issue with me. Even if you don't choose to change your licensing it's
> refreshing to talk with someone without some kind of licensing prejudice
> getting in the way.
>
> The original reason I wrote you was because I noticed this thread on the
> CodeGear nntp server: Adrock DateTime Suite Components now under GPL!
> it's in the thirdpartytools.general group.
> "


I guess I should add Gordon, that, at the end-of-the-day - I just don't
want anymore whinging about it!

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gunnar Gren
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
2010-11-17 Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> What's the best.


Copyright law.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2010
In article <4ce8b40b$0$993$(E-Mail Removed)4all.se>,
(E-Mail Removed)lid, Gunnar Gren says...
>
> 2010-11-17 Dave Doe <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> > What's the best.

>
> Copyright law.


Wakey wakey

--
Duncan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: XP licence - accidently wrong licence - can i change richard Computer Support 13 05-19-2010 08:58 AM
Re: XP licence - accidently wrong licence - can i change VanguardLH Computer Support 0 05-17-2010 09:43 PM
Re: XP licence - accidently wrong licence - can i change Mike Easter Computer Support 0 05-12-2010 10:01 PM
Another Open-Source Licence Bites The Dust Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 0 11-27-2009 08:08 AM
exchanging 32bit licence to 64bit licence problem =?Utf-8?B?cnVzc193aWxs?= Windows 64bit 14 05-12-2005 05:52 PM



Advertisments