http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Thresholding-from-Java-tp3688545p3688552.html
I'm not sure what the scientific community is, but I sometimes sell products derived from ImageJ and its parts. This is only possible because it is not constrained by a restrictive license. Anything GLP can never be included in product I make, so it might as well not exist as far as I'm concerned. This is not my idea of a good fit.
> Hey Bob,
>
> In my experience, GPL fits great with the idea of ImageJ plugins, programs
> that you want to make open, usable and also tunable by the scientific
> community.
>
> I understand your point, but I don't think it's such a big deal. You could
> always create a specific version of your software with a suitable license
> for commercial purposes if you need it.
>
> All the best,
>
> ignacio
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Robert Dougherty <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion it makes GPL licensed code useless to professional software
>> developers, and therefore should be avoided. See
>>
http://www.opensource.org/ for less restrictive alternatives, such as the
>> BSD and MIT licenses.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Ignacio Arganda-Carreras wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again Guanghua,
>>>
>>> GPL means basically that you allow other people to use and modify your
>>> program and source code as long as whatever they do with it remains as
>> well
>>> under the GPL terms. It's on my opinion a very fair way of forcing
>>> everything to stay open source:
>>>
>>>
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>>>
>>> To apply it, you just have to add some lines at the beginning of your
>> code:
>>>
>>>
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html>>>
>>> Look for example how i did it in AnalyzeSkeleton:
>>>
>>>