Re: licenses, etc

I might be wrong here but I could use binarycloud for a client and as long as they didn't REDISTRIBUTE it then it would be perfectly legal for them to NOT release the source to their apps. --Joe On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 05:50:32PM -0800, Alex Black wrote: > > If you go with GPL you force anyone using binarycloud to GPL any additions, > > which will not sit well with all prospective paying non-technical clients. > > yes, but that's exactly what I want. > > for example, if you are a firm building something for a client, and you > build modules for that client's specific needs, they are a) yours and b) > almost always useless to the outside world. > > _but_ if you make an improvement to the permissions system, of the form > bulder library, I want that code back, so everyone can benefit from it. > > > I believe the PHP community has show an extraordinary commitment to > > improving software, fostering communication and learning, and holding to the > > spirit of open-source. > > Absolutely. One of the reasons I did this whole thing in php. That and php > rocks :) > > > LGPL with an encouragement and kudos for contribution where possible still > > keeps binarycloud open, but allows people to write applications with it. > > From my understanding, under LGPL any fundamental 'core' changes will be > > included under the license, though if developers do need to keep modules > > separate, they will be able to, but will also have the freedom of including > > any modules under LGPL if they want to. > > Right, I haven't had time to read LGPL today, I will tomorrow, but I thought > the basic jist was that you could compile lgpl stuff into commercial > applications, which would be sold. > > That can never happen to binarycloud. This is pretty esoteric, but > important: > > if a firm that builds web apps as their primary business gets money to > _configure_ binarycloud, linux, apache, etc, and to _build_new_modules_ that > is fine with me. > > if a different firm builds a couple modules, and packages the whole > thing up and calls it "whatever's groovy packaged web-app" and doesn't > credit the copyright holder (my company) and the developers, and other > copyright holders, that would piss me off, i.e. I cannot allow it. > > that is a very subtle difference, but important to me. > > I have spent a _lot_ of money getting this system done right, so i need to > be very careful about how it is used out in the world. At the same time, I'm > not interested in stopping people from legitimately using it. (for obvious > reasons) > > > > In short, my opinion is that GPL is best used for 'complete' applications, > > so that they cannot be extended in a proprietary manner, locking out > > competitors and robbing the development community of refinements they have a > > direct stake in and responsibility for. I believe LGPL is much better when > > creating code that may be used as foundation building blocks for other > > applications that may, in a business sense, exceed the scope of the original > > application. > > At the moment, I have no actual basis for comparison besided the "vague > memory" stuff I said above, I'll read the LGPL, and post tomorrow :) > > thanks andrew. :) > > _a > > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-general-unsubscribe@lists.php.net > For additional commands, e-mail: php-general-help@lists.php.net > To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin@lists.php.net --- Joe Stump PHP Programmer www.Care2.com