[Drawkit] DrawKit license

[Steve Weller]

Graham,

Be careful of revocability. Many of the licenses are irrevocable, so  
if you license it and then decide to charge for it, the new license  
will only apply to later versions (and that is messy if source  
continues to be available). But nobody will invest time in the  
software if the license is revocable, so you pretty much have to say  
that it is irrevocable and make sure that the right is passed on to  
derivatives.

Where you can make money and/or add value is through support. I  
license the code from you for free (as long as you get credit etc.) in  
my commercial product, but to be able to support all that code I  
didn't write, I pay you a separate fee for support, which could come  
in many forms.


On May 12, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Graham Cox wrote:

> The CC 2.5 license is probably the wrong choice for this. I realised  
> that after I went with it but haven't so far changed the headers to  
> something different.
>
> The intention isn't to have a "viral" type license like the GPL (I  
> didn't think CC 2.5 was like that, but anyway, it's not really ideal  
> for software). The fundamental intention, ultimately, is this:
>
> • Credit to the author (i.e. me) if you use my code in whole or in  
> part**
> • Changes/fixes directly made to DrawKit itself contributed back
> • No liability on my part if you use DrawKit and something goes  
> wrong or it doesn't live up to your expectations (i.e. no warranty).
>
> And the license should permit:
>
> • Commercial use (though I reserve the right to offer DrawKit under  
> alternative non-free licenses for commercial use on request).
> • No obligation on you to release any code that makes use of DrawKit  
> into the public domain.
>
> And specifically DrawKit's license does not cover:
>
> • Use of linked third party code such as GPC and potrace, which must  
> be licensed separately.
>
> If the LGPL covers all of these, then I expect we can change to use  
> the LGPL.
> I would appreciate any input on this, because licensing isn't  
> something I've really thought much about to any great depth.
>
> **the credit given should be in your "about box" credits if you have  
> them, and in your product's documentation. Exact wording to be  
> determined.
>
> cheers, Graham
>
>
>
> On 13 May 2008, at 4:21 am, Brad Larson wrote:
>
>> In examining the license for DrawKit, I see that it is using the  
>> Creative Commons 2.5 Share Alike - Attribution license.  It is my  
>> understanding that this operates in a GPL-like manner, where  
>> derivative works, including applications that link to the library  
>> or framework, must have their source released under the same  
>> licensing terms.  This presents a problem for us, as we would like  
>> to use the DrawKit view classes in a preview window for our main  
>> control software for one of our pieces of equipment, but cannot  
>> afford to open-source the entire control program.
>>
>> I know that I might stir up a flame war, but would an LGPL license  
>> for the DrawKit framework be possible?  That might help with  
>> adoption, especially with some of the indie software folks who may  
>> wish to incorporate the framework in applications for sale.  The  
>> framework and direct modifications would remain open-source, but  
>> the specific apps need not be.
>>
>> Sorry for the multiple posts, I thought that this deserved its own  
>> topic.
>>
>> ______________________
>> Brad Larson
>> SonoPlot, Inc.
>> 3030 Laura Lane, Suite 120
>> Middleton, WI 53562
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Drawkit mailing list
>> Drawkit at lists.apptree.net
>> http://lists.apptree.net/listinfo.cgi/drawkit-apptree.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Drawkit mailing list
> Drawkit at lists.apptree.net
> http://lists.apptree.net/listinfo.cgi/drawkit-apptree.net

--
Blog:  http://www.bagelturf.com/   Photos: http://bagelturf.smugmug.com/