Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:11:13PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote: > > > Well, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use > > the library. > > This is a common misconception, but entirely untrue. There are many > free software licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, which are > compatible with the GPL.However the combined work of a GPL'd library and a BSD-licensed application would indeed have to be distributed under the terms of the GPL, correct? It just happens that the application's source code in this case is dual licensed.> You can read more about various free software licenses here: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html > > > BSD is too much too because changes in the software world (improvements, > > bugs, backdoors) would not be available to you. > > This depends entirely on who is making the changes. There are many > successful projects, such as Apache, where improvements are freely shared.Indeed, it is in the interest of people who make bugfixes or improvements to contribute them back to the original project. Otherwise, they have to do the extra work of tracking the main releases against their modifications.> > I think for hardware, dual-licensing is the way to go. You can use a BSD > > license as the second license, but only available to people who pay (or > > any other reward, or nothing) for that version. > > I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to redistribute the > software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for software under > this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give copies to > anyone.If a company has paid a large sum of money for a BSD-licensed piece of software they intend to use commercially, why are they going to give away copies for free to their competitors? Still, using a more restrictive license for companies who wish to keep their modifications private achieves the same goals without the risk of letting a BSD-licensed copy go into the wild (assuming you wish to keep it GPL). Josh -- Josh Haberman <joshua@haberman.com>
Drew Hess wrote:> Anyway, consider the chances that someone will use the BSD license to make > proprietary changes to FLAC. Weigh that against the chances that FLACWell, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use the library. BSD is too much too because changes in the software world (improvements, bugs, backdoors) would not be available to you. Only the hardware world is a problem. And usually when they support a format they're ready to pay for the development and even the port ot their architecture. I use a lot the SciTE editor which is BSD-like. Neil Hodgson is working full time on it because some company use his (BSDed) libraries in their closed software. And they pay the development for improvements or modifications. And that's not even in the hardware world ! I think for hardware, dual-licensing is the way to go. You can use a BSD license as the second license, but only available to people who pay (or any other reward, or nothing) for that version. Otherwise you can create your own one (maybe with the help of a lawyer). Just put that clearly in your webpage and sources. Noone will be scared of your code anymore :) A notice like : "Versions of this code are available under another license on demand".> will be an even bigger success if you go with Xiph, and make your choice. > > I think it's a no-brainer. Go with Xiph! It'd be a great addition to > Ogg. > > Just be ready for lots more bug reports :)What keeps people around Xiph from using FLAC in OGG already and report bugs ? If marketing is what you're looking for it's OK. But that would be bad to consider people around Xiph so close minded that they would use your codec only if you are part of Xiph... *grin*
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:11:13PM +0100, Steve Lhomme wrote:> Well, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use > the library.This is a common misconception, but entirely untrue. There are many free software licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, which are compatible with the GPL. You can read more about various free software licenses here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> BSD is too much too because changes in the software world (improvements, > bugs, backdoors) would not be available to you.This depends entirely on who is making the changes. There are many successful projects, such as Apache, where improvements are freely shared.> I think for hardware, dual-licensing is the way to go. You can use a BSD > license as the second license, but only available to people who pay (or > any other reward, or nothing) for that version.I don't understand...a BSD license grants permission to redistribute the software freely; it does not make sense to charge a fee for software under this license because once it is given, the purchaser may give copies to anyone. The idea behind dual licensing is to provide for both free software and commercial uses. The software can be made available under a copyleft license (such as the GPL) which allows it to be used to create derived free software, and also under a license which is more restrictive, but allows for derived works to remain proprietary. -- - mdz
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Steve Lhomme wrote:> > Just be ready for lots more bug reports :) > > What keeps people around Xiph from using FLAC in OGG already and report > bugs ? If marketing is what you're looking for it's OK. But that would > be bad to consider people around Xiph so close minded that they would > use your codec only if you are part of Xiph... *grin*I was joking, kind of. I meant that I think FLAC will have lots more users if it's part of the Ogg project, due to the Ogg project's visibility. More users means more bug reports :) -dwh-