Hello,

Both of those seem good ideas. As long as you use a licence that is known to be a free software licence and generic (the PHP licence is not generic), then I think many people will be happy.

okay so it depends on my view if it is more a "library" or a "program".

Beyond that, which you choose is a tactical decision based on:

• your beliefs

I beliefe in free software. Many times discussed with friends. Some of mine disagree making "everything" for free (they mean "no costs" and not "freedom").

• the preferences of your collaborators

My main project is GNU GPL and it's not a library. It's a PHP program (script).

• the licences used by any competitors

and more besides.

Close-source, dedicated to one person. Unicate programming. I fully disagree with this. I want to give everyone who want's to write browser games a little tool in his hand.

I know there is already a free script out there on sourceforge. But the last update is 2 to 3 years ago and no documentation is available. I want to make it better. :-)

Okay, so I will think about it.

Thank you a lot for your help. :)

Regards, Roland Haeder (ä = ae)

Hi Roland,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:55:22PM +0100, "Roland Häder" wrote:

I have looked up the already started source code. I have used code from my GNU GPL (not LGPL!) project so I have no other chance left: GNU GPL.

if you are the copyright holder of "your" other project, you can always release this under GNU LGPL, too.

To choose between LGPL and GPL is not just from your believes, but also from practical tactical considerations. It does not depend on a "libary" or so, as the L stands for "lesser", as in "lesser protection". I cannot give you all the rules, because this would need a longer in-depth discussion. However some hints:

Using more protection (GNU GPL) will lower the chance of wide distribution. This is good if you have an outstanding product without much proprietary competition and you do not need many technical connections which could case problems.

Using less protection will raise the chance of distribution. This can make sense if you want to make sure you get a critical mass, e.g. in light of the proprietary competition. In some circumstances, even a license without protection, like the X11 style license can be the best choice for the overall effect of freedom. Example: ogg vorbis, where even Richard found a non-protecting license adaquate.

Bernhard

Roland Häder wrote:

Hi,

as for a complete program (e.g. my php script "mxchange") it is not a good idea to lower security because I want that it stays free.

But as for a "library" it might be a good idea to let them implementate it into other "non-free" programs.

BTW: Is an appplication framework more library or more "complete program"? In my view it's a library regardless my framwork will create full valid HTML pages. The "main program" is missing in e.g. my framework - what also the word "framework" said: a frame-around-work. A frame script (library) around the main program so the "main program coder" can focus on his project and has not to focus on e.g. a Content Management System.

And argh.... little typo in subject: PHP fram-->e<--work. the >e< is missing. ;-)

What if the guy using your framework wants to add other php projects like JpGraph, or some image management? This may be impossible depending on the licensing of these other items

Once project where this became important is Agata php report writer and JpGraph which was changed to the QPL. Thus it is impossible for Agata (GPL) to use new versions of JpGraph.

Sam