Mark Schonewille wrote: > On 15 apr 2011, at 16:14, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> Scott McDonald wrote: >>> >>> Where I was getting it mixed up, was that I was equating selling >>> commercially with not making the source code available. >>> >>> But of course, they are not the same thing. >> >> Not exactly the same, but how many people pay for milk when they can >> get the cow for free? >> >> If the GPL-licensed technology you're considering is absolutely >> essential, you may have no choice. >> >> But if you can find an alternative solution using something governed >> by the Apache or MIT licenses you'll not have to worry about GLPing >> your own stuff. > > Richard, > > You'd be surprised how many don't know how to milk a cow or wouldn't > bother doing so because it is so much easier to buy the milk in the > supermarket. I, for one, could get a cow for free, but I have no > place for it on my balcony.
True, and indeed there are some who make getting and using their GPL source unnecessarily cumbersome, such as sharing the source with no make file.
But such a gambit is too easily transparent and risks alienating the very people who are providing your components, the FOSS community. Moreover, anyone can make a tool to obviate such a trick to make it easy to share the software.
And of course with LiveCode, turning source into an executable requires only one click, so the number of people who might be willing to milk that cow is much larger than those who think it's difficult to run a make file.
The point of GPL isn't to trick people into giving you free components for your app, but to participate in an open sharing of software.
There's a reason most commercial works using GPL also use a dual license for their commercial version, rather than expecting people to pay for something that anyone can download, modify, and redistribute for free.
The bottom line is that if you want to participate in free software, make free software.
If instead you just want to benefit from free software without giving anything back to the community, read the license agreement very carefully and it may be good to consider consulting an attorney who specializes in IP to make sure the implications are well understood.
LGPL is a bit more flexible in allowing a free component to be used in a non-free application, but straight GPL may not be so clear, whether "linked" or not, if you distribute the GPL'd component as part of your app, as you noted in the article at your site.
I'm not an attorney, so local state law prohibits me from making any specific recommendations regarding licensing or other legal matters.
But I am a contributor to a few open source projects, so I feel fairly confident that if a component developer chooses GPL instead of LGPL he did so for a reason, and under the rights acknowledged by international law we should honor their decision.
When in doubt, the best way to understand the intentions of the creator of a work may be to simply ask him directly. If he's a free-software zealot he'll probably make that clear, and if he's willing to make a proprietary-use license available for reasonable terms he'll probably make that clear too. I find few developers turn down the opportunity to make unexpected money. :)
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
