From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:19:08 +0300 From: Alex Efros To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <20090401201908.GC2577@home.power> References: <49D35353.7020400@aspector.com> <3e1162e60904010748w2d0aac8v307089b295f39ca4@mail.gmail.com> <49D382A2.9040001@aspector.com> <3e1162e60904010920l1f78e32dx2eb0e4c51dc237a7@mail.gmail.com> <49D39B0F.2030508@aspector.com> <1238608248.22573.19384.camel@work> <49D3C83C.9040608@aspector.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49D3C83C.9040608@aspector.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Subject: Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib Topicbox-Message-UUID: d03ad146-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Hi! On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly > willing to change to it. For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and libraries. GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war. -- WBR, Alex.