Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib

["J.R. Mauro" <jrm8005@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
> 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.

Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important
to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping
me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.

So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made
available to you.

>
> --
> 			WBR, Alex.
>