[Matroska-general] License Form for TCME
Christian HJ Wiesner
chris at matroska.org
Fri Jan 30 15:35:44 CET 2004
Moritz Bunkus wrote:
>>Great !! I recommend to relicense under a L-GPL/QPL dual license then.
>>Cyrius, Mosu : do you both agree ?
>I don't understand...
>a) ... in which way the QPL differs from GPL and
>b) ... why we need two licenses.
I was just talking about this on IRC in detail, and BBB confirmed there
is use for the dual license.
The L-GPL makes us compatible with practically any OSS project under the
sun. Thats great. On the other hand, it would also allow commercial apps
to use libmatroska for free, as long as they stick to the rules for
using L-GPL libs in closed software, i.e. :
- They distribute the library sourcecode, as well as modifications they
made to it to be able to use it, together with their program
- They create object files which will allow the user of their software
to update the library by themselves
Both is certainly feasible for them, but could be considered as a real
pain in the ass by them, so they wont support matroska.
The QPL license would give them the chance to overcome those rules, and
simply implement our libs into their programs, after we granted them the
explicit right to do so. Of course you might now argue that this is well
possible with L-GPL also, as we can relicense our code under whatever
form we like to, so they can us it. The nice thing by doing this via
QPL, as i see it, is that those companies can automatically update
their apps against our latest version of the libs ( if the modifications
are released under QPL also, thats the control we have ), and we dont
have to relicense new versions of the code for them all the time.
Does this make sense to you ?
More information about the Matroska-general