PNF: Is it Appropriate?
by des_a from LinuxQuestions.org on (#56ECR)
Here, it was determined that maybe I shouldn't post about my language as far as how to fix it.
I have refrained after that, and only posted here, about the design, but not about fixing it.
HOWEVER, circumstances have changes since that point. At the point where I wrote that thread, I didn't have enough of a working version to even post on the Internet. I soon did have enough, later in the thread. I was struggling with license terms for getting it out there, and was learning about them.
I learned here, that it's okay to change your license in a case like this.
Wanting to remain open source, and wanting to take advantage of good code bases, I decided to make the thing have GPL liscenses (some parts are one of their licenses, and some parts are another [See the docs for which is which]).
I did, because I developed my plan: Plan for licensing is to release up to the OS, as GPL, then release the actual kernel (the PNF part), under my license I'm going to create but almost have done. Why different license for that? Because a) It's like a time bomb anyway, it becomes GPL after time. Second, b) I think for "some things" mine is superior. c) I want to give users rights, but I want to be in it to make money. Not that I can't make money with GPL, but my strategy is to also use simple licences to increase that money. NOT THE WAY MICROSOFT DOES THOUGH. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
So at least for the GPL components, I wanted to know what all of you think. Should I post more now that I decided to use GPL, or should I not? I can use help, and if I asked here, people would probably help. But I want to get a final determination of whether it's appropriate for GPL stuff. I don't want to break rules on purpose. Still learning forum rules too (general, not specific).
I tried another site, and it wasn't that helpful. They do not have the knowledge like here. I want to learn to be a better programmer by having people point out things, and learn how to fix issues slowly but surely.
Thanks!
I have refrained after that, and only posted here, about the design, but not about fixing it.
HOWEVER, circumstances have changes since that point. At the point where I wrote that thread, I didn't have enough of a working version to even post on the Internet. I soon did have enough, later in the thread. I was struggling with license terms for getting it out there, and was learning about them.
I learned here, that it's okay to change your license in a case like this.
Wanting to remain open source, and wanting to take advantage of good code bases, I decided to make the thing have GPL liscenses (some parts are one of their licenses, and some parts are another [See the docs for which is which]).
I did, because I developed my plan: Plan for licensing is to release up to the OS, as GPL, then release the actual kernel (the PNF part), under my license I'm going to create but almost have done. Why different license for that? Because a) It's like a time bomb anyway, it becomes GPL after time. Second, b) I think for "some things" mine is superior. c) I want to give users rights, but I want to be in it to make money. Not that I can't make money with GPL, but my strategy is to also use simple licences to increase that money. NOT THE WAY MICROSOFT DOES THOUGH. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
So at least for the GPL components, I wanted to know what all of you think. Should I post more now that I decided to use GPL, or should I not? I can use help, and if I asked here, people would probably help. But I want to get a final determination of whether it's appropriate for GPL stuff. I don't want to break rules on purpose. Still learning forum rules too (general, not specific).
I tried another site, and it wasn't that helpful. They do not have the knowledge like here. I want to learn to be a better programmer by having people point out things, and learn how to fix issues slowly but surely.
Thanks!