On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 12:02:58AM +0000, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, John Goerzen wrote:
In which case, it will fall under the default (GPL) license of the library (and may later be given to fptools to be part of the "standard" library).
I would've thought the GPL was incompatible with being part of a standard library intended for use in potentially-commercial applications?
The pedant in me says: the GPL is orthogonal to commercial use. It is not orthogonal to proprietary use. I am not somebody's code slave, writing code for them to use in a most likely for-profit closed-source program for nothing. If they want to use my code in such a project, they can negotiate with me for a license to my code for that purpose (and with the authors of the other GPL'd code in MissingH, should they require it also). If they want to sell their program and bundle the source and the rights inherent with the GPL, that is fine by me. We can all benefit from that. So yes, I know what the ramifications are, and the choice was quite intentional. But like I've said, I am willing to negotiate with people that require code under a license that lets them use it without releasing the code. I have also stated that I will put any part of the code I've written under the fptools license if that code will be added to fptools. (I perceive that as a greater good than license pragmatism in this instance.) Similar offers could be made to other Free Software projects if necessary. I am not the inflexible and oft-inscrutable object that is RMS :-) -- John