On 07/20/2010 10:21 PM, Levi Pearson wrote: >> If your wrote *all* the code yourself, you absolutely can release only >> part of it under the GPL. > > Yes, but that negates the power of using open source building blocks. > I assumed some other copyright holders in the mix, either from the > beginning or from accepting contributions under the GPL without > copyright reassignment.
Well incompatible licenses should be a concern no matter what license you are working with. I don't think a GPL library author owes you as a developer anything. So use something that's compatible with your license. If no one can use a library because it's GPL, then it will die and be replaced with something else. I don't see your concern as a genuine problem. If you're working on a proprietary, commercial project, for example, then you should have already taken this into consideration. Also, many GPL'd projects (even ones with multiple copyright holders) are licensed under several different licenese. > Yes, but that's GPL-with-exceptions, not vanilla GPL. Structuring > things correctly and coming up with the necessary exceptions and all > that seem needlessly complicated to me. Well, as I said, writing a special exception to the GPL is not strictly necessary for the copyright holder(s). But a GPL-with-exceptions license can become a vanilla GPL license for the derivative author. Any exception to the GPL need not live past the first generation if you as the developer choose that to be so. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
