2 ms·
I don't know why you say I champion the BSD license, I only used it as an example. I have never used the BSD license, for the very reasons you just stated - it
by blackhole 15y ago
I don't know why you say I champion the BSD license, I only used it as an example. I have never used the BSD license, for the very reasons you just stated - it is at odds with what I want the program's code to be used for.
These terms are not contradictory. Anyone can use and distribute the code for whatever purpose, and any changes made to the code must be made available to the open source community, just like the GPL, except now only that part of the program must be released as source code, and the unrelated portions of the program are free to remain proprietary. This isn't incompatible, and it isn't the GPL.
- wwrap 15y agoThere's this magical license you may not have heard of that does just that called the LGPL. The LGPL's entire existence is about compromise. Why are you intentionally ignoring it?
- blackhole 15y agoI would appreciate it if you had actually read my blog post where I spend a paragraph explaining why the LGPL doesn't solve this problem :)
- corysama 15y agoLGPL is a nice compromise. However, it's my understanding that LGPL requires that the user must be able to substitute alternative implementations (swap in custom DLLs). That simply isn't an option for me (console games, mobile apps). There have been many situations where I'd be happy to use OS code, fix bugs and publish my changes. But, I'm not willing or able to OS my proprietary code. LGPL won't let me do that because RMS's vision is not compatible with my reality.