Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com writes: Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the source code for any released product that included your library. As a result, most people working on commercial published software, or who contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries altogether. Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? It is quite clear that using GPLed software by a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is allowed. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him the whole software under GPL. Nicolas P.S.: Sorry about Cross-posting to gnu.misc.discuss, but there should be the experts. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon) writes: In-house use would be outside of the scope of the GPL, since no distribution would occur. This means that in-house distribution to employees would not count as distribution in the GPL sense. OK, this might indeed be the most reasonable point of view. Nicolas ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: It does not get you anything additional, but it gets you something _less_: a proprietary product that uses your own code to draw your user base away from you. This is quite understandable - I would not really like seeing Microsoft use my code. However, when I was in search for a license for code of mine -Femlisp, a PDE solver written in Common Lisp- I stood before the question which license to choose[*]. A commercial license did not make much sense, because the code was (and is) not yet commercially valuable. However, I wanted to retain at least some possibility of providing enhanced value (in the form of additional features) within a commercial setting. A GPL license would make this business model impossible for everyone - _including me_ as soon as other people would start contributing relevant portions of code under the GPL. Therefore, I decided in favor of the (modified) BSD license. Nicolas [*] More precisely, I asked my university for permission to use either GPL or BSD, and then had the choice. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
