What license to pick...
lionello at mondobizzarro.com
Tue Oct 3 08:42:02 UTC 2000
The end is near.....
LER> An alternative you might consider is the Aladdin Free Public License
I found it at:
Thanks for the tip! It is what I've been looking for. Distribution is
allowed but every change from the original Work must be clearly stated. I
guess that's something I can live with. : )
And- I guess I was wrong about the linux distributions, thanks for pointing
that out to me. However, I think the same problems applies to CVS (please,
don't attack me on this : ).
JC> Then what you want is for people to improve your toolkit without
JC> any possibility of return either in money or in reputation.
I think you got me wrong. Of course, anyone making a change (or bug fix)
will be mentioned in the 'log file'. And what's more, that person is already
_using_ the toolkit, isn't that worth something?
JC> As for "[...] as long as it's not used commercially. What they do
JC> [...] is entirely up to them", that sounds self-contradictory.
Well, what I meant was that they can license their components if they want
to. It's all component based. So if a company has created a plug-in, it can
sell that plug-in. Or they can release the code for that plug-in, whatever.
I don't restrict what they should with their source code. They'll still have
to pay some fee for commercial usage of the toolkit though.
But, as mentioned above, I'm very satisfied with the AFPL, and we've already
decided to put our toolkit on our homepage with this license. This doesn't
mean however that I'm not accepting suggestions and comments! Like I've said
before, This is just to ge things started. Eventually, we may decide on a
real open-source license..
Thanks again for all your help guys!
More information about the License-discuss