Re: [pygame] Licensing

[James Paige <Bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:48:19PM -0400, Chris wrote:
> James & Pete,
> 
> Thanks for following my licensing question.
> 
> In response to James' comment, I spent a couple of hours reviewing the 
> LGPL and GPL.
> 
> My current publicly available project, pyBCD 
> (http://www.pygame.org/project/793/?release_id=1374), is a sandbox for 
> getting familiar with python and working out techniques that will go 
> into two bigger projects.  At least one of those to will be commercial.
> 
> I put pyBCD under GPL V3 just to have a license with it.
> 
> Now I'm thinking it's a decent idea.  I agree with fair use and open 
> source. If someone wants to modify it and distribute their own version, 
> provided they follow the terms of the GPL, that's ok.
> 
> Or do I think that because pyBCD is a nifty, intellectual curiosity, not 
> intended for profit, and my commercial projects are in late alpha stage?
> 
> According to the GNU site, LGPL is best when you need to develop a 
> following for your project (pygame, gcc, etc.) and GPL when you already 
> have code superior to closed source.
> 
> As a binary clock connoisseur, I would say, yes, I have written the 
> Mother of all BCD Clocks (I'm charitably leaving the larger "binary 
> clocks" category open.) :)
> 
> The GNU distinction seems like a distinction without a difference. 
> Where is the "gotcha" in GPL?  Is it in packaging a distribution?
> 
> Is the "gotcha" against me or someone trying to distribute?

(Oversimplification Alert!)

The big difference between GPL and LGPL only really comes into play when 
the program you are distributing is a library (like pygame)

An LGPL library can be used by a closed source program

A GPL library cannot be used by a closed source program

But if your program is not a library, then this distinction isn't really 
going to be relevant to you. All you will be interested in is 
derivatives of your program, and in that case GPL and LGPL are much 
closer.

(End Oversimplification Alert)

Another thing of general note, is that if you are the only author of 
your software, you are therefore the only copyright holder of your 
software, and you can freely license and re-licence and dual-license 
whenever you please.

Only when your project contains contributions from multiple authors 
(including stuff re-integrated from derivatives) does it become 
difficult to change your mind later about what license you are using. 
All copyright holders (authors) must agree to a change in license 
(which explains, for example, why it is daking Sun so dang long to GPL 
Java)

---
James Paige