Re: License Choice


Bal Oney wrote:
> >Does your favorite open source license follow these rules?
>
> Choosing an open source license depends on how you define free, and
> free to me means no one will ever have to pay to use free software.
> The GPL and LGPL both try to guarantee this type of freeness.

They do not.
Not only does the GPL allow me to charge for GPL'd software, but I can
even take your code, make some minor modifications to it, and sell the
result. What the GPL guarantees is that I have no control over the
software once I pass it on. That is, the recipient can do as they
please with it (including giving it away for free).

That's what GPL "freedom" is all about -- freedom for the recipient to
do as they please with the software. In some respects, this can be a
good thing. Products like Linux would never be developed without such a
license because too many programmers are afraid that someone else might
profit from their work (as if Red Hat weren't proof that it would
happen anyway). OTOH, for small and less popular projects, the GPL is a
roadblock that prevents certain people or organizations from working
with your code base. So the choice is pretty obvious- If you're
interested in making the code available to programmers to use in any
way they see fit (freedom to the programmers), the GPL is not
appropriate. But if you're afraid that they might make money off your
work and you don't want that to happen, GPL might be a good approach.
Just don't be surprised with your project does *not* get the attention
you feel it deserves because a lot of people aren't interested in
touching GPL code, and the ones that are interested in promoting "free
software" will probably work on bigger and more famous projects.

The best solution, of course, is "public domain". Make it totally free
for everyone. So what if someone takes your code and makes it
proprietary? It's not like your original work still isn't free and in
the public domain.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interesting Web Site on Open Source Development
    ... >a lot of programmers go with GPL, ... >Putting their code into the public domain would achieve even more. ... If that means that Microsoft ... Lots of programmers do donate their code the to public domain. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Interesting Web Site on Open Source Development
    ... > Lots of programmers do donate their code the to public domain. ... > like with it, even criminals like Microsoft. ... My problem is that they promote GPL code as ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Problems about license
    ... no open source license will fit. ... away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution ... with the GPL as the open source license. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: How do I write a data DVD without K3B or its utilities?
    ... cdrecord which may be capable of burning CD-Rs but fails with DVD±R. ... The Debian developers got into a pissing match with Jörg Schilling ... it is an approved open source license. ... It's that combination of GPL and CDDL and the fact that the tarball isn't ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Very Small C Compiler which can generate DLL files?
    ... snip ... ... GPL or annother open source license. ... attacking people because they try to earn their life. ...
    (comp.lang.c)