Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 20 Mar 2010 14:20 On 2010-03-20 13:52:18 -0400, RG said: > Yes, that is why it is wise to make these inquiries *before* deciding to > use the code. This really isn't that difficult. Here, let me show you: > > PB: would you be willing to license your llrbtree library to me for use > in a commercial product? What would be your terms? > > That wasn't so hard now, was it? No, but as easy as it is, (and this doesn't take account of authors who don't reply, or take 3 weeks to begin the back and forth over a commercial license price, etc.) it is still significantly more effort than using a bsd/mit/apace/lgpl/etc. licensed library with similar functionality. So people will just do that. The result is, libraries that are licensed lgpl will see more use than libraries that are licensed gpl (this is, after all why the lgpl was created - though now called the Lesser GPL it was originally the Library GPL, as I'm sure you're aware). Barriers to adoption, even if "not so hard," still reduce usage. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: RG on 20 Mar 2010 15:51 In article <ho33kq$qe0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-20 13:52:18 -0400, RG said: > > > Yes, that is why it is wise to make these inquiries *before* deciding to > > use the code. This really isn't that difficult. Here, let me show you: > > > > PB: would you be willing to license your llrbtree library to me for use > > in a commercial product? What would be your terms? > > > > That wasn't so hard now, was it? > > No, but as easy as it is, (and this doesn't take account of authors who > don't reply, or take 3 weeks to begin the back and forth over a > commercial license price, etc.) it is still significantly more effort > than using a bsd/mit/apace/lgpl/etc. licensed library with similar > functionality. So people will just do that. > > The result is, libraries that are licensed lgpl will see more use than > libraries that are licensed gpl (this is, after all why the lgpl was > created - though now called the Lesser GPL it was originally the > Library GPL, as I'm sure you're aware). > > Barriers to adoption, even if "not so hard," still reduce usage. Of course. There is a competitive landscape. Those who provide more for less will take customers away from those who provide less for more. But again, that is very different from what you originally said (which I notice you keep cutting out of the context): > no one who currently works on a commercial, > published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial > published product in the future, can take the risk of using your > libraries because they are GPL licensed. *That* is simply false. rg
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 21 Mar 2010 00:02 On 2010-03-20 15:51:52 -0400, RG said: > >> no one who currently works on a commercial, >> published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial >> published product in the future, can take the risk of using your >> libraries because they are GPL licensed. > > *That* is simply false. Sorry, should have written no one who currently works on a commercial, published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial published product in the future, can take the risk of just using GPL licensed libraries, as they could just use LLGPL licensed libraries, or just use MIT licensed libraries, or just use BSD licensed libraries, or just use Apache licensed libraries, without first negotiating and obtaining an affordable commmercial license, which affordable commercial license may or may not be available. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: RG on 21 Mar 2010 03:32 In article <ho45nm$j5r$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-03-20 15:51:52 -0400, RG said: > > > > >> no one who currently works on a commercial, > >> published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial > >> published product in the future, can take the risk of using your > >> libraries because they are GPL licensed. > > > > *That* is simply false. > > Sorry, should have written no one who currently works on a commercial, > published product, or who contemplates working on a commercial > published product in the future, can take the risk of just using GPL > licensed libraries, as they could just use LLGPL licensed libraries, or > just use MIT licensed libraries, or just use BSD licensed libraries, or > just use Apache licensed libraries, without first negotiating and > obtaining an affordable commmercial license, which affordable > commercial license may or may not be available. Assuming competing libraries under those licenses exist. They may not. I guess the operative words in what you're saying are "just using." It's true that you can't "just use" GPL code in a commercial product. You have to either GPL your own code, or negotiate a separate license with the copyright holder. But those are hardly insurmountable obstacles. The way you phrase it still sounds like FUD to my ear. rg
From: Nicolas Neuss on 21 Mar 2010 10:56
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > Using them would place their employer or the commercial organization > to which they belong under the obligation of publishing all of the > source code for any released product that included your library. As a > result, most people working on commercial published software, or who > contemplate doing so in the future, simply avoid gpl libraries > altogether. Here is a question which I find rather interesting: Is in-house use of GPLed software allowed? It is quite clear that using GPLed software by a single developer to run a commercial web server for example is allowed. But in the case of multiple developers inside a company one could either argue that the company operates as an entity, or alternatively that the company by letting one of their developers combine GPLed software with their own product is forced to give her/him the whole software under GPL. Nicolas P.S.: Sorry about Cross-posting to gnu.misc.discuss, but there should be the experts. |