Re: [Swftools-common] License for commercial desktop software and/or website one

[Ahmad ElDardiry]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
May peace and Allah Mercy and Blessings be upon you,

 

Chris,

 

"The source that you write yourself, does not need to be, The source
from Matthias'
work, *does* need to be.   Version 3 of the GPL, only asks that you
link to the source,
for example via FTP, or at least explain where it can be obtained by
those who are
interested to do so.  A small price to pay for what you are getting, I
think, yes?"

 

Definitly, I'm perfectly ready to credit Mathiass however he likes in my application, links, copyright files, ..., but including the entire source code files with the binaries, this is somewhat difficult.

 

I hope Mathiass confirms that.

 

 

"Comparison to other licenses
===================

at this link:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License"

 

I did check that, MIT (or X11) seems much more liberal, though that doesn't mean I'm not convinced of the importance of GPL.

 

Thank you again Chris, your help is much appreciated.

 

 

 

2009/7/28 Chris Pugh <address@hidden>

Ahmad,

2009/7/28 Ahmad ElDardiry <address@hidden>:

> السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
> May peace and Allah Mercy and Blessings be upon you,
>

> Chris,
>
> Thank you, now I understand.

Good.

> "My sentence was simply a tag line to the response given to you
> by Matthias, and meant to qualify his statement.   Where is the
> difficulty in your comprehension?"
>
> I  apologize if I did understand you wrong, I think that's because my
> English has a limit.

As does my arabic(!)   I have just re-read what I put.  Apologies, I could
have put it better.  Glad you understood me though.

> "Where is the problem in allowing
> people access to the source code of something that you yourself got
> for nothing, and crediting those responsible?   Please enlighten me/us?"
>
> Well, the problem is that I don't see including the source code in a
> commercial application makes sense or professional, if I intended to release
> my product as open source, this would be convenient, at least in my opinion.
>

The source that you write yourself, does not need to be, The source
from Matthias'
work, *does* need to be.   Version 3 of the GPL, only asks that you
link to the source,
for example via FTP, or at least explain where it can be obtained by
those who are
interested to do so.  A small price to pay for what you are getting, I
think, yes?

Ask Matthias again, if that is sufficient.  Better still I'll ask him
to qualify as well.

> "There is really very little different between MIT"
>

> Would you be kind enough to tell me that difference in brief, as I  my

> English is not that good to read and fully understand the licences, I'm also
> not a lawyer or so.

Wikipedia does it well.  See the section.

Comparison to other licenses
===================

at this link:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

> Bettawfeeq to you too, (smile).
>
> Thank you.
>

You are most welcome.

Regards,



Chris.

>
>
>
> 2009/7/27 Chris Pugh <address@hidden>
>>
>> 2009/7/27 Ahmad ElDardiry <address@hidden>:
>> > السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
>> > May peace and Allah Mercy and Blessings be upon you,
>> >
>> > Chris Pugh,
>> > "...else you are breaking the stringent terms of the GPL"
>>
>> > Why do you think I'm asking these questions here for ?
>>
>> My sentence was simply a tag line to the response given to you
>> by Matthias, and meant to qualify his statement.   Where is the
>> difficulty in your comprehension?
>>
>> The GPL is, in effect, a Copyright License.  When Matthas created
>> SWFTools, he made it Open Source, releasing under the GPL,  i.e.
>> showing anyone who was interested, how the program binaries do
>> what they do.  He still retains Copyright on his own idea and code.
>>
>> Redistribute and use the GPL's binaries from the SWFTools distribution
>> in your own work, and you *must* make the source code that created
>> them available to the user.  How that source code is actually made
>> available depends on the version of the GPL you re complying with.
>>
>> > I don't know much about GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT ... but I'm also willing to
>> > respect them. If including these binaries only would break the license,
>> > then
>> > insha' Allah I won't use them.
>>
>> Dear oh dear!  Why so uptight? ;o)   Where is the problem in allowing
>> people access to the source code of something that you yourself got
>> for nothing, and crediting those responsible?   Please enlighten me/us?
>> Are you perchance worried that customers may not buy your wares,
>> when they realize the major components are GPL'd??
>>
>> > There is "sswf" as an alternative to me, which may have a more suitable
>> > license for me (MIT), I'm not sure yet, but I find SWFTools much more
>> > easy
>> > to use, so I thought I check here first.t need
>>
>> There is really very little different between MIT and GPL:
>>
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL
>>
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License.
>>
>> for example, you have to include the respective License Agreement with
>> your
>> own presumably intended to be proprietary ( closed source ) software!
>>
>> >  Mathiass, you mentioned this in other thread:
>> >
>> > "You don't need licensing for that- You're free to use the swf output
>> > files
>> > for whatever you see fit."
>> >
>> > and that's exactly what I want to do, is this legal ?
>>
>> With respect, that is an entirely different point.  You don't need
>> permission
>> to use them, nut you should still make the source code that created them
>> available in some form to your 'customers'
>>
>> Bettawfeeq   بالتوفيق!
>>
>> Ma’a salama,
>>
>>
>> Chris.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> لا إله إلا الله
> There is no god but Allah
>
>
> أحمد
> Ahmad
> http://www.shagarah.com
> http://www.arabicode.com
>

--










لا إله إلا الله
There is no god but Allah


أحمد
Ahmad
http://www.shagarah.com
http://www.arabicode.com