Kenneth Downs wrote:
>>> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible.
>>
>> LGPL?
>>
>> My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source
>> application if it is GPL.
>>
>> That may be your intent (which I actually don't have a business
>> problem with), I was just curious as to your decision.
>
> If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will
> definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you
> cannot do so.
>
> If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda,
> you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself.
> However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because
> your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You never modify a
> file, and your files and mine are actually in separate directories.
>
> I greatly appreciate your asking the question though because I'd like to
> make sure that people feel safe with the project. My goal is to provide
> the freedoms typically associated with the "plain old GPL", and
> certainly not to restrict the creation of closed apps. I just don't
> want anybody closing *my* app.
Then it sounds like LGPL is exactly what you want. That forbids people
closing your code, but allows linking of it to closed apps. Cf Tom's
comments, it's quite difficult for anyone to release code that depends
on GPL'd code without incurring the terms of the GPL for their code (and
that is clearly the way the FSF want it to be).
But as Joshua was implying, a common business model is to release some
code under GPL, which means it can be used only for GPL'd apps, and then
also be willing to sell other sorts of licences for it to be used with
commercial apps. If that's the sort of business model you have in mind,
then GPL is probably what you want.
Tim
--
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Allen tim@proximity.com.au
Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/
