BSD Licence.
Locked
12
12
 
|
On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:40:08 you wrote:
> Hi Jerry & all, > > ... as I am a *poor*, repeat poor, *Pensionist*, I am not having any > CREDIT CARD at all :-( > sorry to say.... > Thomas. > ====================================================================== Sorry? You should be proud... I have neighbors that are so far in debt that they will never see the end of it... -- ***************************************************************************** From the desk of: Jerome D. McBride 13:25:41 up 77 days, 1 min, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 ***************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Hi Jerry,
Proud to say that I#ve nearly *no* debits on my bank account ... But also sorry, that I cannot use PAYPAL or whatever, because I do have *NO Credit cards* as well.... Issue closed (from my side) ... Please succeed to subscribe the new project 'reyc' at www.kenai.com for my upcoming Rey Compiler release (open source, of course :-)) ;-) Tom. ================================================================= Jerry McBride schrieb: > On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:40:08 you wrote: > >> Hi Jerry & all, >> >> ... as I am a *poor*, repeat poor, *Pensionist*, I am not having any >> CREDIT CARD at all :-( >> sorry to say.... >> Thomas. >> ====================================================================== >> > > Sorry? You should be proud... I have neighbors that are so far in debt that > they will never see the end of it... > > > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
In reply to this post by rickmcguire
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Rick McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There are lots of resources available on the internet that explain > open source licenses. Here is a reasonable starting point, but google > is your friend. > > http://openacs.org/about/licensing/open-source-licensing > > The world is roughly broken down into two camps, the GPL camp and the > various non-GPL licenses. The GPL license has a viral nature. If you > use GPL software in your software, then your software must also be > distributed under the GPL, which requires you to make all of your > source code available too. But nothing prevents him from DUAL-LICENSING his code like Mozilla.org did, with both a GPL and MPL license. This allows the "free side" (linux etc) to incorporate his ReyC compiler with linux distros if they want. AND at the same time, proprietary products can be released based on his non-GPL licensed version. Dual-licensing is not as hard as it seems. A small quote from one linuxinsider article: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why dual license? This is the most important question businesses need to ask before adopting the dual licensing approach. The biggest motivation for using the dual licensing model is to make money through price discrimination by monetizing your intellectual property. Companies like MySQL, SleepyCat and Trolltech report doubling their revenue or more through a dual licensing model. MySQL states on its Web site, "Our software is 100 percent GPL, and if yours too is 100 percent GPL (or OSI compliant), then you never have to pay us for the licenses. In all other instances, you are better served by our commercial license." They give away the software, yet they make money selling it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38172.html Fernando Cassia (FC) :) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Hello Fernando,
1.) Will study your reply in detail during the upcoming weeks. I'm currently *more that busy* to complete all of my own test-cases. 2.) Please subscribe Project 'reyc' at www.Kenai.com for detailed discussions, when necessary. Tom. ============================================================== Fernando Cassia schrieb: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Rick McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> There are lots of resources available on the internet that explain >> open source licenses. Here is a reasonable starting point, but google >> is your friend. >> >> http://openacs.org/about/licensing/open-source-licensing >> >> The world is roughly broken down into two camps, the GPL camp and the >> various non-GPL licenses. The GPL license has a viral nature. If you >> use GPL software in your software, then your software must also be >> distributed under the GPL, which requires you to make all of your >> source code available too. >> > > But nothing prevents him from DUAL-LICENSING his code like Mozilla.org > did, with both a GPL and MPL license. > > This allows the "free side" (linux etc) to incorporate his ReyC > compiler with linux distros if they want. > > AND at the same time, proprietary products can be released based on > his non-GPL licensed version. > > Dual-licensing is not as hard as it seems. > > A small quote from one linuxinsider article: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Why dual license? This is the most important question businesses need > to ask before adopting the dual licensing approach. The biggest > motivation for using the dual licensing model is to make money through > price discrimination by monetizing your intellectual property. > Companies like MySQL, SleepyCat and Trolltech report doubling their > revenue or more through a dual licensing model. > > MySQL states on its Web site, "Our software is 100 percent GPL, and if > yours too is 100 percent GPL (or OSI compliant), then you never have > to pay us for the licenses. In all other instances, you are better > served by our commercial license." They give away the software, yet > they make money selling it. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/38172.html > > Fernando Cassia > (FC) :) > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello Fernando, Thanks Thomas for always listening to my points of view, I think ultimately dual-licensing will help ReyC become more popular by 1) Making it possible for it to be included into GPL linux distros 2) Allow you to make money at the same time, due to the commercial uses and bundling it with propietary code for business, etc... I will subscribe to your new list. FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Hi Fernando, and all.... I'm still *not* familiar with all those OPEN SOURCE Licensing issues, sorry to say : Fernanado, & all, *which* licence shall I now use for the Release of ReyC (my Rey Compiler) there at www.Kenai.com (project 'reyc'). I already *did decide* to release it on www.Kenai.com (*not* Sourceforge), simply to make the NetRexx Language and associated tools *visible* to the *Java World.*. I am, however, from the various inputs I'm getting, still confused *which OSS* Licence to use! I'm NOT, repeat *NOT* familiar with all those licensing issues at all ! I'm the owner of my Software. I'm (trying to) maintain it. When possible, I'm interested, after so many years of effort, to make some Money out of it..... ;-) Hence, could we please (on 'reyc' at www.Kenai.com) come to a point where we all can decide which Licence Type will be the best for all of us ?? Tom. ============================================================== Fernando Cassia schrieb: > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > Hello Fernando, > > 1.) Will study your reply in detail during the upcoming weeks. > I'm currently *more that busy* to complete all of my own test-cases. > 2.) Please subscribe Project 'reyc' at www.Kenai.com > <http://www.Kenai.com> for detailed discussions, when necessary. > > > Thanks Thomas for always listening to my points of view, > > I think ultimately dual-licensing will help ReyC become more popular by > 1) Making it possible for it to be included into GPL linux distros > 2) Allow you to make money at the same time, due to the commercial > uses and bundling it with propietary code for business, etc... > > I will subscribe to your new list. > > FC > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email]
Tom. (ths@db-123.com)
|
|
|
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
Tom, That´s what I´ve been trying to tell you: by dual-licensing it you just offer the same code for download with two licenses, say reyC-v1.00-gpl.tar.gz reyC-v1.00-mit.tar.gz And everyone is happy. Linux distros can add your code to their distribution CDs and file repositories, and those who want to develop commercial products can download and use the non-GPL version. GPL simply requires that those that take your product and modify it -or bundle it with other code- make their derivative works also available under the same license (ie provide their source code too). By dual-licensing, you let users have a choice about which one fits their needs better. That´s what allowed Mozilla.org or instance to have their browsers bundled with Linux distros and remain free, while at the same time allow Netscape to create derivative browsers bundled with propietary (non-open) code (Netscape 6.x - 7.x). FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> When possible, I'm interested, after so many years of effort, to make some >> Money out of it..... ;-) >> >> Hence, could we please (on 'reyc' at www.Kenai.com) come to a point where >> we all can decide which Licence Type will be the best for all of us ?? >> >> Tom. > > Tom, > > That´s what I´ve been trying to tell you: by dual-licensing it you just > offer the same code for download with two licenses, say > > reyC-v1.00-gpl.tar.gz > reyC-v1.00-mit.tar.gz > > And everyone is happy. Linux distros can add your code to their distribution > CDs and file repositories, and those who want to develop commercial products > can download and use the non-GPL version. A GPL license is not necessary for code to be included in Linux distros. ooRexx, for example, is included with the Fedora distros with its CPL license. > > GPL simply requires that those that take your product and modify it -or > bundle it with other code- make their derivative works also available under > the same license (ie provide their source code too). The GPL requirements are much stronger than that. If you intermingle GPL licensed code with your code at all and distribute that code, then you are required to release all of YOUR code under the GPL as well. That's what is referred to as the viral nature of the license. And for a compiler with run time classes, the mere act of compiling your code using the tool and redistributing using the compiled code and required runtimes is enough to trigger that requirement, so it is a slippery slope. The GCC compiler and the runtime uses the LGPL license which is a little more lenient in that regard to avoid that sort of problems. > > By dual-licensing, you let users have a choice about which one fits their > needs better. That´s what allowed Mozilla.org or instance to have their > browsers bundled with Linux distros and remain free, while at the same time > allow Netscape to create derivative browsers bundled with propietary > (non-open) code (Netscape 6.x - 7.x). Again, dual licensing much be approached with care. Many companies take the approach that once code has touched a GPL license, that it must be avoided because of the viral risks of the GPL. Rick > > FC > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Rick McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:
"viral risks" ? Is this a Microsoft Windows mailing list?. Is your last name "Ballmer", Rick? JOKE, JOKE. (Sorry, couldn´t resist.) ;-) Now seriously, when I meant "GPL" I actually included the GPL and LGPL licenses. I was making a broad statement, not pinpointing the subtle or not so subtle differences between LGPL and GPL. LesserGPL (LGPL) is fine by me. In any case, the fact that industry heavyweights like Nokia, Intel, and Mozilla.org have released software under a GPL or LGPL license... must speak volumes about the usefulness of the LGPL license. I repeat: Mozilla-org has triple-licensed their code and Sun Micro dual-licensed Openoffice.org under a LGPL and another non-totally-free(viral) license. I say: give end users and developers choice. Of course, the only piece of code that matters which IBM has opensourced with a GPL license is the JFS file system... so IBM´s track record with Free Software is rather uninspiring. FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |