I'm gonna have to pull up an RTF(Web Page) here Steve.
Steve wrote:I've only read the first point of that nice review, but I have to say there are problems already. If we use GPL, because of the nature of the multiple contributors, we can never go commercial. Although, I'm not entirely sure if we can GPL the source (so it's free always, as we agreed) and as well as that, make money on the side from boxed CDs with manuals, etc?
The manual does not need to be under GPL does it? (Although it could be if people wanted to) We are free to sell the manual for profit because thats not technically part of the code/binaries. Then again, any Silly Simon is entitled to the same right too (think "TE for dummies"). Please remember that the community decision was that
TE is not for profit.
Steve wrote:We also need to consider the licenses of the things we are using within the project and how that effects what license we must choose. For example, if the TRoS engine is GPL and we use it, we must be GPL also?
Yes. The TRoS devs have indicated that it will be LGPL, which means we are allowed to only dynamically link to their code. If they decide to then go to GPL then we will withdrawl our interest if our license is not GPL compatible. If we go with GPL then we are free to use GPL code either statically or dynamically linked. Any sane library uses LGPL (or similar) because its an incentive for other people to use it in whatever manner they deem fit, while making sure that anyone is entitled to freely contribute.
Steve wrote:Plus, doesn't MPL allow contributors to sell the code, without the groups permission? Isn't this kind of against what we agreed? Or am I mis-understanding MPL?
Had you read the page, you would have come across a stellar example to the contrary which makes GPL look like the bad-guy. (I dont think you misread, I got that impression too, but its clarified further along the article.)
MPL allows the *original author* the freedom to the go off and sell their part of the code (or use it in their own for profit program). If the author does this then anyone with copies of this code (such as the TE team) is then entitled to do the same thing (that is, sell it too). This removes the incentive to sell.
MPL does allow the original author to then use their code in other projects too, extend it, and then sell it, which again, would mean we could sell their portion of the code. (Or effectively cover it under the new license)
On the other hand GPL lets the original author the freedom to relicense their work under a different license anytime and then go off and sell it, and at the same time keep the original version in TE. The author has no right to withdrawl their code. Once its in the public domain, released as GPL, it stays GPL so long as other people use/extend it.
The original author has complete freedom on what people do with their code (which is the basis of copyright). MPL removes the incentive to become commercial, GPL does not.
.