You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Richard Watson <ri...@gmail.com> on 2005/01/25 10:15:40 UTC
Which licence?
Hi all,
I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
(and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
Richard
[1] 3 parts - a "base" that can be used with any UI, some things for
Apache James, and a Tapestry library.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Richard Watson <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thanks guys, great points. Will feedback any decisions we make!
Richard
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:02:49 -0500, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not a license expert.
>
> Some claim that the ASL gives companies too much in the way of rights
> to take and use your code. From my point of view, I want Tapestry to
> be all-pervasive, so I'm fine with that.
>
> GPL/LGPL reserves more rights, but may prevent adoption of your code
> by many, for a mix of rational and emotional reasons.
>
> BSD seems to be the most compatible licence; I'm not very clear on the
> differences between BSD and ASL.
>
> Most of the others are minor variations of these, with extra rights
> accorded to the authors (i.e., "free distribution as long as first
> born is offered in sacrifice to Baal").
>
> I'd do some research starting at http://www.opensource.org/
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:15:40 +0200, Richard Watson
> <ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
> > licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
> > essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
> > improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
> >
> > Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
> > here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
> > (and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
> > a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
> > and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > [1] 3 parts - a "base" that can be used with any UI, some things for
> > Apache James, and a Tapestry library.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
I'm not a license expert.
Some claim that the ASL gives companies too much in the way of rights
to take and use your code. From my point of view, I want Tapestry to
be all-pervasive, so I'm fine with that.
GPL/LGPL reserves more rights, but may prevent adoption of your code
by many, for a mix of rational and emotional reasons.
BSD seems to be the most compatible licence; I'm not very clear on the
differences between BSD and ASL.
Most of the others are minor variations of these, with extra rights
accorded to the authors (i.e., "free distribution as long as first
born is offered in sacrifice to Baal").
I'd do some research starting at http://www.opensource.org/
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:15:40 +0200, Richard Watson
<ri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
> licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
> essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
> improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
>
> Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
> here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
> (and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
> a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
> and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
>
> Richard
>
> [1] 3 parts - a "base" that can be used with any UI, some things for
> Apache James, and a Tapestry library.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by "Joachim (PROGS)" <jo...@progs.be>.
Richard Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
> licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
> essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
> improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
>
> Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
> here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
> (and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
> a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
> and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
I would recommend MPL triple license.
This forces all chenges to the source to be resubmitted, and allows
inclusion in MPL/GPL/LGPL projects (including commersial). So seems to
allow as widespread adoption as possible and maintain open source spirit.
Joachim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
Now you tell me ;-)
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:09:01 -0500, Erik Hatcher
<er...@ehatchersolutions.com> wrote:
> Save yourself the trouble, John, and go with Cayenne instead :)
>
> Erik
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Save yourself the trouble, John, and go with Cayenne instead :)
Erik
On Feb 10, 2005, at 7:36 PM, John Reynolds wrote:
> At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
> asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
> through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
> Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
> one way or the other soon.
>
> I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
> sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
> wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
> license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
> we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
> lobbying hard in favor of the software.
>
> It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
> just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
> software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
> sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
>
> Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with
> others.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Brett Randall <ja...@gmail.com>.
Yes, funny world isn't. I'm not sure how an LGPL licence applied to
Java code could be tested without utter confusion resulting in lots of
lawyers, given that the licence uses terms that try to be generic but
cannot apply to all of today's technologies.
My musings ... check this out in LGPL w.r.t. Java:
* However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library
What's an executable ... ahhh, that would be the JVM, since it is the
only thing my OS recognises as an executable. But JARs, no, they are
binary, but not even object code ... hmmm. :)
* When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library,
Header files? Obviously written by C programmers :)
It only gets better:
* If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length)
More C. Show me how to apply this to Java. Or is there a specific
version of LGPL that applies to Java - not that I've seen.
I've never really had a problem with LGPL, just musing that it is
funny that so many lines of code can be licenced under a document that
it seems could never apply technically ... show me when I ever
distributed an executable :)
Cheers
Brett
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:36:20 -0600, John Reynolds
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
> asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
> through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
> Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
> one way or the other soon.
>
> I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
> sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
> wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
> license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
> we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
> lobbying hard in favor of the software.
>
> It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
> just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
> software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
> sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
>
> Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with others.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
At my work, we want to incorporate an LGPL'ed product (Hibernate). We
asked for approval 3 months ago, and the matter has been moving
through the system ever since... Our CEO and the Senior Management
Team will consider the matter on Monday. I hope they make a decision
one way or the other soon.
I got to spend an hour with one of our lawyers today going over
sections 5 and 6 of the LGPL, and I can tell you that to me the
wording is vague and subject to interpretation. The more I read the
license, the more confused I became as to my company's obligations if
we distribute any software that relies on LGPL software.... and I am
lobbying hard in favor of the software.
It's up to you if you want to apply the LGPL to your own software. I
just want you to be aware that it will limit who can use your
software. I suggest that you read the license carefully, especially
sections 5 and 6, before you make your decision.
Either way, thank you for being generous and sharing your code with others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
This ought to be a fun thread, but let's not get too carried away here
as its quite off topic.
You're asking about preferred licenses on an Apache Software Foundation
sponsored e-mail list?! :)
I, for one, can say that I shy away from xGPL simply because it has
more stigma associated with it in the industry. ASL is my preferred
license and I never think twice about grabbing a library licensed as
such. If there were libraries with identical functionality under xGPL
and ASL, I'd pick the ASL one.
I don't want this thread to spin out of control here, but I will add my
perhaps controversial thoughts that ASL is really about trusting in the
good of the users to contribute back, where I feel xGPL is about not
trusting people to do the right thing and using legalese to force them
to do so. If I use an open source library and fix a bug in it, I
always contribute it back so I don't have to concern myself with that
issue in future releases. If I extend the library I also have no
problem sharing my extensions, but I also have no problem with others
pocketing the extensions and profiting from them.
Erik
On Jan 25, 2005, at 4:15 AM, Richard Watson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
> licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
> essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
> improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
>
> Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
> here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
> (and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
> a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
> and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
>
> Richard
>
> [1] 3 parts - a "base" that can be used with any UI, some things for
> Apache James, and a Tapestry library.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Which licence?
Posted by PA <pe...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 25, 2005, at 13:18, David Leangen wrote:
> Personally, I only use project with an Apache-type license.
Personally, I don't care one way or another as, contrary to you, I'm
not a lawyer :o)
Cheers
--
PA
http://alt.textdrive.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Which licence?
Posted by David Leangen <dl...@canada.com>.
Personally, I only use project with an Apache-type license.
Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Watson [mailto:richard.listmail@gmail.com]
> Sent: 25 January 2005 18:16
> To: tapestry-user
> Subject: Which licence?
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a project to be open-sourced, and I have to decide on a
> licence. My thoughts are to go with LGPL as the project is
> essentially a library [1] and I'd like to encourage people to submit
> improvements if it ever proves useful! :)
>
> Any thoughts? Anybody who _wouldn't_ use it if it were LGPL? I ask
> here because I think you guys are the people most likely to use it
> (and suggest the massive improvements I'm sure will be needed!) Still
> a few things to do but it's not going to happen unless I get started,
> and I could really do with the advice and ideas of some others.
>
> Richard
>
> [1] 3 parts - a "base" that can be used with any UI, some things for
> Apache James, and a Tapestry library.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org