[darcs-users] Re: (L)GPL for Darcs API?

[Thomas Zander]

On Sunday 17 April 2005 12:22, Leif Frenzel wrote:
> I didn't mean to make this into one of these infamous 'free vs. non-free'
> licensing discussions; but just for clarifying my point: 

agreed :)

> >If you want to release under another open source license;  why not
> > relicense that under the GPL since more then 70% of open source
> > software already 
> > is GPL licensed which simply makes business sense.
>
> Hm, I don't quite understand your argument here. Do you really mean to
> say: 'If you want to release under a different license than the GPL, then
> you should release under the GPL'? Probably not, but then, what are you
> saying here? I would like to have a real choice when I release software.

You should read this for the full argument;
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html

> The important (IMHO) point is: there is, and should be, a variety of
> stances you can take if you release open source software. And if I do
> this, I would like to try and preserve that freedom also for other people
> who use what I released (as long as they don't try to take undue credit).
> I like to think of that as more liberal than constraining their choices.

Choosing a license is very personal;  I personally really don't care about 
getting credit as much as I care that my work is being used and build on 
top of, now and in the far future. In my opinion the only way to do that in 
the long term is to make sure noone can just take my work and not give back 
the extentions he made.
In other words.  Building on top of an existing API is integral part of the 
maturing and growing of a piece of software and if the resulting 
application is sold but not fed back as GPL to the original library then 
this will not enhance the original product at all.

Since this stance is a given; you have to choose your components to build on 
top of when you create your product for commercial purposes.  Rewriting 
what darcs already did, but in a closed source manner is a viable option, 
just a lot of work.
Releasing your code as GPL is another.  You have to do the number crunching 
for yourself to find out which it best for you.  Just remember the message 
from the above referenced paper;  release under the GPL and a lot more 
people will actually contribute to it.

Cheers!
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20050417/3f2faea0/attachment.pgp