From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:30:13 -0400 From: "J.R. Mauro" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20090401213013.GF16666@tuxbookpro.rit.edu> 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> <20090401201908.GC2577@home.power> <20090401204218.GD16666@tuxbookpro.rit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Subject: Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib Topicbox-Message-UUID: d066bea0-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 02:47:29PM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody > wants to use it because of the license? Ok, this is flamebait, but... >>From what I've seen, it works; there are plenty of projects under the GPL that get contributions. Of course you can argue the merits of any of them. But if you don't like the license, it's very simple: don't use it. And as I remembered, there are alternative licenses with similar intent, like the Vim license. > > Lucho > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > > 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. > >> > > > > >