[From nobody Thu Jun  7 16:11:06 2018
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:37:40 +0200
From: Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@intevation.de>
To: Gordon Carrie <tkgeomap@mac.com>
Cc: Silke Reimer <Silke.Reimer@intevation.de>
Subject: Re: Tkgeomap updated
Message-ID: <20030808083740.GA8985@intevation.de>
References: <3962598.1060294110932.JavaMail.tkgeomap@mac.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3962598.1060294110932.JavaMail.tkgeomap@mac.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.0-gpgme-030408


--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Gordon,

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:08:30PM -0500, Gordon Carrie wrote:
> =20
> On Wednesday, August 06, 2003, at 04:37AM, Silke Reimer <Silke.Reimer@int=
evation.de> wrote:
>=20
> >When I looked at your homepage to find out the main changes from 1.7
> >to 2.0 I found out, that you changed the licence of tkgeomap and I
> >was wondering why you have done so. Is there a special reason? I'm
> >asking because the permissive MIT licence protects the freedom less
> >than the LGPL.
> >
> I changed the license when another developer who has been helping
> me requested it.  He agreed to give credit and provide references
> to my web site, which I find sufficient.

=46rom the license he is not required to tell anybody
that this is your software or link to your homepage.
The LGPL protects your interest for this much better.

So in general resisting people that want permission
to use your software without pointing this out to the user
is something to consider. :)

> I am aware that the MIT/X11 license does not mandate distribution
> of the source code with derived products.  That is ok with me,
> because I would rather have subsequent users come to my web site
> and download the latest version. =20

The LGPL makes sure that the chances are very high that you
get a hold of the changes others have done.
This also means there is a higher chance that you actually=20
can make them available in the official version some day.

> I have also considered using the
> BSD license, which just requires distribution with the developers
> names.  My main concern is receiving credit and making it possible
> for users to contact me with feedback and contributions.

The "old" BSD has that obnoxious advertisment clause,
that is why it got replaces with the "new" BSI clause
which basically is an X11 style license.

Qualified comments on many of the licenses can be found here
	http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

=46rom stating your interests I believe that the LGPL would serve you bette=
r.

> Thank you for the comments.  I still find it difficult to choose a
> license.  The discussions on your list are often useful.

You are welcome. Was there a reason to not post this to the list?

Best,
	Bernhard

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/M2FUh9ag3dpKERYRAsAAAKC3wde997YXL07DQT8teJ3byp1wcQCaA3ih
PYHzG5DsLqWnZDGr79utJrY=
=4HZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--
]