Re: [Texmacs-dev] Double licensing or exceptional clauses

[David Allouche]

On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:44:20PM +0200, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> 
> I was thinking about double (multiple) licensing: the whole software
> falls under the GPL in any case and any second license will make
> clear that the whole software is available under this license too.
> However, this license permits nobody (including ourselves)
> to distribute and/or sell binaries based on (e.g.) Windows/Qt.
> We will ask any contributor to agree with the fact that
> I, we, he or she (we have to think about this) are allowed to
> distribute TeXmacs under a different license which permits
> the distribution of binary versions when this is necessary to
> make the software work on a given platform, under the condition
> that these binaries may be freely copied and sold. Hence,
> every *particular* binary distribution is as free as it can be.

I really do not see the point here.

The GPL already authorize linking against proprietary system
libraries. I think that precisely addresses the needs of making the
software work on a give platform. Using proprietary non-system
libraries like Qt is *not* a requirement to use win32.

> In other words, this process somehow cleanly automizes
> the process of making exceptions whenever needed.
> Each possible exception is ensured to be as free as possible
> on its own, but we have the privilege of deciding when
> exceptions can be made.

I do not understand what you want to do.

I am not fundamentally opposed to a dual licensing schemes, especially
if that can make organizations like the CNRS and the ANVAR more
comfortable. However, the whole problem of software licensing is not
very clear, especially with free software, and especially in Europe.
So I would rather prefer not to make anything fancy before we have IP
lawyers to help us secure that kind of things.
 
> > Really, I think we should keep off Qt/win32. However I really would
> > not like to have to program a user interface on raw MFC; as it is
> > probably as bad as Xlib. Maybe then we would be able to use wxWindows
> > for the win32 port.
> 
> The problem with wxWindows seems to be that we can not customize
> the menus very much. We should check this for Qt too though.

As long as you can make the symbol menus (which is maybe a bit tricky)
and update the menus on the fly (which any half-decent toolkit can
do), I do not see what is the problem.

METAFONT-rendered menus are not a feature. They are disruptive of
look-and-feel policies and even if they are cute, they are *not* to be
kept with other toolkits.

--

                             -- David --