On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 06:44:43 +1000 (EST) you wrote:
>On 4 Oct 1999, Vidar Hokstad wrote:
>
>> >I still personally think the MPL is the only standard license that fits
>> >the linked in case at all
>>
>> I agree, but on the other hand I'd gladly support licensing the code under
>> both the GPL and the MPL, so that those who wants to develop free software
>> can do so and still use other GPL'd software in their programs.
>
>IMHO, the simple/obvious answer is GPL. If someone wants to write
>commercial/closedsource programs, there's nothing at all stopping them
>from writing their own library, under their own license. I very much
>dislike the thought of someone making money off any code I've written,
>without giving something back to the opensource community, and I'm sure
>quite a few people would agree.
In our case, our alternative is to write our own library, yes, or choose
one under a less restrictive license. Currently I work part time on a widget
set for NanoGUI. In the near future I and another developer will be working
nearly full time on it, and we also sponsor another company to port a major
software product to NanoGUI.
This is code that we contribute back. If the _contributors_ to NanoGUI
regards prefer a restrictive licensing scheme over those contributions,
then fine. In that case we'll spend our time and money improving
another product instead, or license a closed source product instead of
spending or time and money on supporting an open source project.
>As long as the API and/or messaging protocol are open spec, then anyone
>can write their own library. X is an example, XFree uses opensource
>license, metrox and accelx used closed. Same function, same result, but
>they had to write their own library.
Actually they wouldn't have had to if they didn't want to. The XFree license
permits closed source use.
Vidar Hokstad
