3 ms·
Well, the main software components are GPLv3. But there's also hardware released as CC-BY-SA, some modules as Apache v2.0. I guess you are thinking of it as a l
by daylankifky 7y ago
Well, the main software components are GPLv3. But there's also hardware released as CC-BY-SA, some modules as Apache v2.0.
I guess you are thinking of it as a library.. In that case you can argue that a copyleft license would restrict the possible adoptions of the system. But this is a framework composed of many modules, most of the time you will interface this system with your own stuff using agnostic protocols, so.. what would be the legal problem for a closed-sourced business to use it?
- yodon 7y agoMost businesses don't want to touch GPL code, particularly GPL v3. By licensing it as GPL v3 the team is basically saying "no one but students and hobby programmers will ever touch this code."
- daylankifky 7y agoThat's kind of the type of user that this project targets. The idea is to put on the independent creator's hands the power to accomplish motion capture in a flexible and inexpensive way. The fact that the license will probably keep big companies away doesn't necessarily means that the project can't succeed. Just to name some examples on the non OS environment: -Slic3r, the tool that virtually started the domestic 3D printing revolution. AGPL license, 8 years of heavy development, 91 contributors and more that 6000 commits on github. -Blender, the powerful 3D creation tool. GPLv2, 25 years, now receiving good financial support from many top-tier companies and from the community. I don't know if you took a look at the current Low-cost mocap panorama. It's an interesting environment where many changes are happening. We felt like there was a place for a community driven project.
- yodon 7y agoAgain, I think you will ultimately conclude you would have been better off with MIT or similar, but only time will tell.