[ot]Re: [PD-dev] flext license

[d]

quite off-topic, but nice:
this mail from smoerk was the #10000 in my pd-mailbox...
keep on rockin'
d13b

> guenter geiger wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> smoerk schrieb:
>>>   
>>>
>>>> The problem with the GPL for libraries is, that you don't have the
>>>> freedom to use another license than GPL for your externals for 
>>>> example a
>>>> BSD license.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> This is simply not true. According to the GPL-FAQ at fsf.org, if you are
>>> using libraries licensed under the GPL, you must use a GPL-compatible
>>> license to use those libraries in your on software. The (modified) BSD
>>> license is compatible with the GPL.
>>>
>>> Compatible here "means you can combine a module which was released 
>>> under that
>>> license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program."
>>>   
>>
>>
>> That was my feeling too, but I did not have the time to look this up
>> really.
>> I think LPGL is not giving you more freedom, it takes away freedom.
>> Be clever and protect yourself. If you write free software you want to
>> make sure that there won't be someone coming along, wrapping some code
>> around your library and making millions without giving you a cent.
>>
>>  
>>
> the bad bad comercial guys ;-). do you really think you can make money 
> with a comercial license? in the case of flext i doubt it. let them pay 
> for your support and your knowledge and don't ignore the advantages of 
> the LGPL in some cases: Apple was able to use the KHTML library (HTML 
> rendering) for there closed source Safari browser, because it's licensed 
> under the LGPL. They made a lot of improvements to KHTML, which means a 
> better open source HTML browser for Linux. Win-win situation...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.kug.ac.at
> http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev