|
||
* Main * License intent * Screenshots * News * Download * Links * FreeWRL manpages     * freewrl     * VRML::Browser     * VRML::Viewer * FreeWRL docs     * README     * CONFORMANCE     * INSTALL     * ARCHITECTURE     * GOALS     * CREDITS     * TODO |
FreeWRL License intentThis license intent was originally written by Tuomas Lukka. We will keep this license intent intact, but it may be re-written in the future. John.stewart@crc.ca On the www-vrml mailing list ([] = later addition)... On Tue, 7 Jul 1998, Mike Fletcher wrote: > My apologies, I had gathered from your comments during our earlier > discussions that you were not amenable to allowing your browser to be > used as a library in commercial situations. I apparently gathered > wrongly. I will review the package as soon as I get a chance to > breathe and come back to you with comments. There are two different matters here. I'm not amiable to someone taking a certain version of my browser and packaging it and adding a small proprietary addition and selling that [without providing source for my browser!!]. It's not so much that I would be against having them make money - you are allowed to put FreeWRL on a CD right now and ask for money. What I would be annoyed about is the same thing as Richard Stallman: if I after that moment improve my browser, I would have to choose between my improvement or the company's proprietary thingie - no way to have both. This is something I'm not willing to let happen. And it's not only bad for me but for the company too, in the long run. I'm being pretty flexible in my opinion by letting the API be public, the only restrictions are: if you take one of the FreeWRL modules and change it, you have to let those changes be redistributed freely and with source. If you write a new backend without using FreeWRL code, it's ok. And if someone wants to do something without writing a whole module but needs to have it proprietary, PLEASE TALK TO ME! It's in both our interests to create an intermediate API so that your extension can be included. For instance, if SuperExtrusion Inc. wants to release a new VRML browser using their extrusion library that they want to keep proprietary, this is possible. What they would have to do is talk with me, establish an API for the library and I'll include the code to use that API in FreeWRL, GPL'd. Their lib stays proprietary and when they release their browser, I can buy a copy and use it with my FreeWRL code that I've updated since then with bug fixes / other new features. Everyone's happy, SuperExtrusion Inc. gets their money and I get to keep my sources alterable. So again, the GPL only applies to modifications made to the FreeWRL modules. It does not traverse across published APIs. This is also to prevent the X11 problem: the X consortium actually got bug fixes from very few external sources, slowing down their development - they complained about this sometimes. With GPL, bug fixes to the core will be GPL'ed. I'm not anti-commercial, just anti-freezing-my-source. I'm sorry if I have sounded too harsh in the past. I'm sure you can see the reason for my point of view. I suppose I should write this up carefully in the distribution somewhere. Tuomas |