GPL licence about webgazer

[shivarajnaidu]

But , I think this awesome bits of code should be in GPL instead LGPL because.. then only we can ensure full freedom along with its future evolution. see.. Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library

[mogest]

I find the FSF's philosophical approach to software ("all software must be open, all closed software is evil") too extreme. As do you, as we're on GitHub, which is closed source software that uses a whole lot of open source software to work!

LGPL allows you the future evolution of the WebGazer library (all contributions must be returned) without preventing people who want to make closed source software from using it.

[shivarajnaidu]

as you said LGPL may allows its future evolution .. but not in beneficial way to software freedom.. LGPL may create undesired side effects. Why not you consider GPL for your commercial software use ? while many people and big companies out there using FREE SOFTWARE

[jeffhuang]

Hi @mogest and @shivarajnaidu, both of you made some great points about the licensing. We put some thought into it, and decided on GPL but LGPL is pretty reasonable too. @mogest How about if we say you can use it on an LGPL license for your startup if it's a small company (say, under $10M valuation).

[shivarajnaidu]

👍 @jeffhuang 😊

[mogest]

Thanks @jeffhuang, that's very kind of you. Our startup is 3 weeks old with no funding, so... yeah, we're a while away from $10M!

[fdecampredon]

Hm could you make it clear in license project with dual licensing ?
Is there a way to have a commercial license in the future ?

Thanks

[alexpapster]

@fdecampredon could you give me some input for the commercial purpose you have in mind? Is there a reason that you are not covered with the LGPL license we have for startups?

[fdecampredon]

We are completely ok with the terms of LGPL license and the $10M limit, but I'll have hard time convincing my company that we can use this project with just a github issue, could you make it clear in the source of the repo by adding the dual licensing in the LICENSE file of the source ?

[fdecampredon]

Ok I have just seen that commit beeecc3 thanks ! everything is pefect

[alexpapster]

@fdecampredon You're welcome. I think I don't need to change the LICENSE file, too.

[fdecampredon]

Yeah it's fine like this, thanks ! 2016-12-18 17:11 GMT+01:00 Alexandra Papoutsaki <[email protected]>:

…

@fdecampredon <https://github.com/fdecampredon> You're welcome. I think I don't need to change the LICENSE file, too. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#30 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA0vyXJcdY2yONRyIpNXPlGX8Ut4HiDdks5rJVsngaJpZM4ItUon> .