From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <49D3C83C.9040608@aspector.com> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 22:02:04 +0200 From: "Bernd R. Fix" User-Agent: IceDove 1.5.0.14eol (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> 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> In-Reply-To: <1238608248.22573.19384.camel@work> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib Topicbox-Message-UUID: d02e0506-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb: > On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: >> David Leimbach schrieb: >>> Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to >>> use this implementation for what I want otherwise. >>> I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and >>> BSDLng it. >> I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So >> what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and >> what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business. >> >> As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel >> that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas? >> Feel free to contact me via private mail on this. >> >> I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that >> once a stable stage is reached. > > Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the > first place? > > Thanks, > Roman. > > P.S. Personally, I try to license my stuff under as non-restrictive > license as possible (BSD or at least LGPL) that still protects me. > That said, I do understand people who use GPL as a statement, not > because the license is particularly good. I can't answer this question with just a few words; I hope the other list members don't complain about this 'non-Plan9' specific discussion... As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software: I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means: I am willing to share my ideas (and code for that matter) with people interested in it. Im am even willing to give all people the right to base their own work on it and/or to modify it to their own liking. All I am asking for is that these people share their ideas and code just like I did - at least if they distribute their work. Essentially, that's it. Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression that the GPL serves this purpose best - from my point of view at least. I understand that there are two cases which lead to problems with a GPL project, but I believe both cases can be solved: 1.) You want to use it in an commercial project and can't/don't want to share your ideas and code. Assuming you are not a criminal, you can't include the software or derived work into your product - the GPL permits that. But you can still license a commercial use with the copyright holder(s) in such cases. If you don't share ideas, at least share your money. 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. Regards, Bernd. -- gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4