Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody
wants to use it because of the license?
Lucho
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote:
>> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license
>> > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it.
>> >
>> > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe
>> > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this.
>> >
>> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against
>> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case.
>> >
>> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that
>> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration"
>> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly
>> > willing to change to it.
>>
>> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL.
>>
>>
>> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't
>> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing
>> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and
>> libraries.
>>
>> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my
>> war.
>
> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that
> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is
> important
> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without
> helping
> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that.
>
> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any
> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are
> made
> available to you.
>
>>
>> --
>> WBR, Alex.
>>
>
>
