-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Theodore Reed wrote: > On Dec 4, 2007 3:51 PM, Paul Furber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Dec 4, 2007 11:57 PM, Souvarine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I haven't studied GPLv3 in details but as far as I know the idea is pretty >> much the same that GPLv2. GPL means "Absolutely no use of the code in a non >> free project !" >> >> Not true. You can _use_ GPLed code in whatever way you wish. The license >> only applies to distributing it.
Well, but the practical consequence is that you cannot use it for a non-free project (with closed source) unless it is something for in-house use only (what is a game good for if you cannot distribute it?). Ideology aside, this effect is commonly used to restrict commercial use of free projects, but this is quite incorrect way to do it. > > Did that web-app loophole get fixed in GPL3? I know they were talking > about it. If it did, then you are incorrect. > > (The web-app loophole was that you could change GPL2 code for a > web-app, and not release the changes because you weren't > "distributing" it to your users.) Nope, this is covered by the Affero GPL (AGPL) license, not GPLv3. However, back to the original issue - what is the motivation to change to GPLv3? Just because it is newer? I think that the Soya developers should decide whether to allow use of the library in non-free projects as well and then move to LGPL license that is more appropriate for framework/library code (honestly, a library/small portion of the whole should not be dictating the license of the rest/my own code - that is the idea behind LGPL). Otherwise stay with GPL. However, then the project will always remain a hobbyist's toy at best. A library with a business-unfriendly license will not get used in commercial projects - the chance of persuading a game developer to release his code under GPL just to be able to use Soya is zero. GPL is completely fine for self-contained applications, though (e.g. something like Balazar). Do not get me wrong, I am not advocating neither GPL, nor LGPL - each has its own pros and cons. However, let's be clear about the intentions and practical consequences of the license choice. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHVokCn11XseNj94gRAhTGAKDo7rxnC1OjZf1nM5J+Rp2Yn+8AdACbBLB4 M0+64DJaXli5aLwA/mXj9gg= =15hv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
