Re: QtD lisence
Russel Winder <russel <at> winder.org.uk>
2012-08-17 10:51:26 GMT
On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 11:37 +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> What I meant was to avoid being forced to license your code under LGPL.
> It's not just for proprietary code, there are also other open source
> licenses which are not compatible with GPL.
Sadly though, licences such as ASL 2.0, MIT, BSD, etc. allow the
unscrupulous to use and make proprietary versions of codebases and
continue to make use of updates provided for free by unpaid volunteers,
whilst making money from their proprietary version. The permissive
licences are fine for established codebases, e.g. Groovy, where there is
no realistic opportunity for successful bad behaviour. For smaller, less
well established codebases, it is possible and known to have happened.
The strategy seems then to use LGPL as a FOSS start up and then
relicence to a more permissive licence once you have a reasonable sized
user base that protects against bas behaviour.
None of this applies to systems that are necessarily distributed as
source, for that case a whole different set of factors applies.
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder <at> ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel <at> winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder