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. >
