Originally posted by monraaf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ATI R600g Gains Mip-Map, Face Culling Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostSane licensing.
/ducks- If you want to incorporate code you did not develop and do not want to pay for into your own proprietary product, then permissive licenses are basically your only choice. That's why Microsoft and Apple love this type of license.
- If you are a coder and you get infatuated by the idea that Apple one day might use your code in one of their proprietary products then
a permissive license is also good for you. - If you are Google and want to make sure your new video codec gets industry-wide support, then a permissive license is also a good choice.
Other than that I recommend the (L)GPL for open source software
Comment
- If you want to incorporate code you did not develop and do not want to pay for into your own proprietary product, then permissive licenses are basically your only choice. That's why Microsoft and Apple love this type of license.
-
Originally posted by nanonyme View PostIsn't LGPL a relatively permissive license anyway? (at least compared to GPL)
Comment
-
Originally posted by monraaf View Post[*]If you want to incorporate code you did not develop and do not want to pay for into your own proprietary product, then permissive licenses are basically your only choice. That's why Microsoft and Apple love this type of license.
For reference, see why Linux still lacks DTrace or ZFS.
Or just look at the endless confusion and irritation caused by GPLv2 vs LGPL vs GPL3 vs GFDL incompatibilities.
[*]If you are a coder and you get infatuated by the idea that Apple one day might use your code in one of their proprietary products then
a permissive license is also good for you.
[*]If you are Google and want to make sure your new video codec gets industry-wide support, then a permissive license is also a good choice.
Other than that I recommend the (L)GPL for open source software
I got a Thank You this morning from a developer working at a large company doing in-house proprietary software; not a software company that will sell the software but which makes software for affiliates and in-house use. He thanked me because one of my libraries (which I haven't even worked on in almost a year) helped him solve a problem that would've taken him months to solve on his own. I don't care that he's getting paid to use my library and not giving me any cash; I wouldn't have gotten freaking paid if it was GPL'd, either, so that would just be the absolute stupidest thing to get upset about in the world. Getting paid was never part of the equation when I wrote the library. What's awesome -- and what drives me to create Open Source software when I can -- is that my work helped somebody out and made their day better. If he gets paid for it, I'm even happier for him. If his company does well and their products are better as a result and their customers get more value for their money, then I'm happy for them, too. The end result is that there are less bugs, less reinventions of the wheel, and a higher quality of life for everyone involved.
Permissive licenses are more social and more friendly than "copyleft" licenses, and anybody who values people more than computers should avoid the L(GPL) and go for a true Open license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by elanthis View PostOr just look at the endless confusion and irritation caused by GPLv2 vs LGPL vs GPL3 vs GFDL incompatibilities.
This may trigger some tinfoil hat feelings, though...
Comment
-
But what if your open source software is competing against proprietary software?
If you use a BSD-like license, the proprietary company can just incorporate all your code, but you can't do the same, so you are going to be at a serious disadvantage.
Since, in addition to that, the proprietary company can pay developers, it's going to be hard to beat them.
Thus, the proprietary program will be much better, everyone will use that, which means that no one will contribute to your open source program, delivering the final blow to it.
That's why the GPL exists and is a better choice than BSD licenses, unless you are sure no company would be interested to compete with the software in question.
If you want your library to be _used_ by proprietary software, use the LGPL, which allows that, but forces to release modifications to the library itself.
Comment
-
Some GPL versions are upgradeable. I don't remember the details. This was a big point in GPLv3 anyway. So if you license under the GPLv3 and the GPLv4 or GPLv5 comes around then anyone can take your code and choose what version of the GPL license they want to redistribute it with.
But what if your open source software is competing against proprietary software?
Comment
Comment