Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-programming (98 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [suse-programming-e] coding direction dilemma
  • From: Colin Carter <colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:59:41 +1000
  • Message-id: <200505161959.41735.colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Monday 16 May 2005 07:35, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 00:52:36 +1000
>
> Colin Carter <colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Monday 16 May 2005 00:12, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > > On Sun, 15 May 2005 23:45:27 +1000
> > >
> > > Colin Carter <colincarter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Thank you for your info, and for the web site reference.
> > > > I interpret those docs as saying that if I write, say a word
> > > > processor, using these Motif routines then I must give away all of my
> > > > code as Open Source. In the case of Qt I can purchase a copy and
> > > > write my own code without having to disclose my source code.
> > > > But X11 and Xt are simply free.
> > >
> > Hi Jerry,
> > I had a look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
> > and got the impression that if I used this code (eg Open Motif) then
> > I would be able to sell my word processor but I would have to give
> > away the code and then anybody could compete with me by selling
> > my product which I spent hours into the night developing.
> >
> > Quote:
snip
> > End Quote.
> >
> > But if I use M$ software then my product is mine.
snip
> The GNU LGPL license allows you to build a proprietary product. This is
> why we have both the GPL and the LGPL. We have plenty of good
> proprietary products on Linux. Additionally, XT has nothing to do with
> Linux other than you can use Linux to build and run a derivative
> product. GPL would require that you release your code as OpenSource,
> but the LGPL and some other licenses do not have this requirement. I
> think you will find the GNU LIBC and other system libraries and header
> files on Linux licensed the same way (eg. LGPL).
> BTW: It used to be that if you built your code on a Windows system
> using Borland, Microsoft, or some other C language systems a few years
> ago, you would have been liable to pay them a royalty.

Thanks for your feedback Jerry,
Yes, I think that you are right in your statement :
"This is why we have both the GPL and the LGPL."
It makes sense: otherwise why have two separate ideas?
You are right about the M$ fee. I always thought it a "bit rich" that you
payed for the software and then still paid through the nose; but I had
forgotten that that was the situation way back when.
As I said to Jerry, I wouldn't mind buying a compiler etc (in fact I regularly
pay for software), it is just that I don't want my many hours of work ripped
off by a "disk jockey" who hasn't contributed an iota.
Thanks again Jerry, your opinion is much appreciated.
Colin



< Previous Next >