On 4 May 2001, at 16:52, Sean Mathews wrote:

> > From recent experience: In order to enable people to freely
> > use Marathon
> > together with GPL and non-GPL projects, don't GPL it, but
> > LGPL it. Read
> > gnu.org for the details, if you go GPL, then Marathon could
> > only be used
> > with GPL software.
> >
> > LGPL is compatible with GPL, but it can also be used with Mozilla,
> > OpenOffice, Apache and all those non-GPL licenses.
> >
> > D.
>
> I am excited about marathon being open-sourced. Just to open up the
> discussion a bit, does the rules and strictures of the GPL or LGPL go
> contrary to Delphi created software that uses the VCL? For all
> intents and purposes you would have to publish them too would you not,
> and thats not legal. Or am I just plain wrong?
>

From a theoritical point of view, you would be correct. In practice,
many Open Source projects are still successful if the vast majority
of people has access to the VCL.

> Anyways, I am in favour of the multi - liscensing concept, which adds
> versatility to the way the s/w can be distributed, and also makes it
> more acceptabe to multiple (sometimes opposed) camps. I would think
> that multi-liscensing a product with a GPL (if applicable) and a MPL
> or such would ensure the best product growth.
>

I think the key to an Open Source effort is not if something is GPL
or MPL but NEED and management of the project. The myth of
Open Source is that you as a developer can simply Open Source
something, make the source-code available and just leave it
around. Further, most projects have ONLY a few people working
on them who know the code thoroughly, know eachother, work well
together, and can communicate. This is important as new people
are braught into the project who may not have as much know how
as more senior members.

The manager has to work act as a benevelant dictator, impose will
and rules on programmers which facilitate work, deligate
responsibility and follow up with the responsible person, and set
priorities and timetimes.