[ot]Re: [PD-dev] flext license
dieb13 at klingt.org
Wed Jan 22 16:58:34 CET 2003
quite off-topic, but nice:
this mail from smoerk was the #10000 in my pd-mailbox...
keep on rockin'
> guenter geiger wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> 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
>> 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
More information about the Pd-dev