Hello Graeme,
this upcoming discussion is the reason, I wrote to you 6 days ago on your
private address. I've sent you an early build of the application, so that
you may, among others, check my licensing policy. I really was hoping to
get some advice from you since I'm not a professional programmer and I
usually don't deal with legal stuff. All this should have happened before I
announced the software in this group.
The [color]profiler is not meant to be a commercial package in any way. On
the other hand,I clearly stated my intentions with it months ago in an
E-Mail that you answered in a positive way -at least from my point of view.
To make one thing perfectly clear: I have no intention to dishonor your
licensing policy in any way. I've stated my intentions months ago in our
private corresponding.
So, let us try to solve this situation in a decent way. First of all, I
want to state, that I don't really want to unleash the source code. The
code itself is no rocket science, and, personally, if I have had written
something more sophisticated, I would probably have less problems
publishing it. In this case it's not the brains, it's my bottom I've used
for months to do something, from which I believed to be a benefit of the
whole community and least but not last, for you. I've stated clearly, that
at least 50 % of any donation made will be forwarded to ArgyllCMS.
At this moment, I think it would be good to separate my program from the
Argyll executables, as Edmund suggested. Otherwise, I need some time to
think about further steps.
Your advice is much appreciated.
Vladimir.
Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 07:04 Uhr schrieb Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
edmund ronald wrote:
I guess none of us are lawyers,
It doesn't matter if you are a layer or not, you must comply
with the conditions of a license of something you are making use of.
but essentially Vladimir needs to in some way separate hisself-installation- if he wants to
own work from Graeme's -eg point people to Graeme's for
stay closed source.
If someone's code depends on my AGPL code for it's operation (making it
a derived work), then that code needs to be compliant with the conditions
that make my code available for copying.
If it ever becomes the situation that the AGPL of ArgyllCMS is being widely
disregarded, then I don't think I'll be inclined to keep maintaining
the free software version of ArgyllCMS, and I would be considering
my options for legal and financial redress.
Graeme Gill.
