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.
