Licensing (Re: [cli] new command line interface library...)

[Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>]

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 01:20:09AM -0500, Damian Ryan Eads wrote:
[..]
> > 1) Would you agree to release it under Apache license or something less
> > restrictive than GPL.
> > How about moving it into JAKARTA-COMMONS (though SourceForge is fine
> > too...)?
> 
> This issue with ritopt's license has been brought up by several people.
> Originally, I was not keen on the idea of changing the license because
> there didn't seem to be any advantages to the free software community.
> The GPL encourages that in return for using your software, developers
> give something back. Until recently, I refused to change the license
> in support of this principle. However, my stubborness has started to wear
> off a little. Changing the license to the LGPL is currently under consideration.

Here's an article that might persuade you :)

http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a//policy/2001/12/12/transition.html

"
	Working Without Copyleft

  It's possible to be an ardent supporter of open source development
  and not be a fan of copyleft and the General Public License. In this
  article the authors -- software developers -- relate how they came to
  embrace copyleft, became disillusioned with its limitations, and
  consequently turned away from it.
"

The FSF implicitly paints a picture of evil corporations exploiting the
works of programmers. The GPL seems to be designed very much with this
in mind.

In reality, most corporations are in the services business, not selling
software per se. In this context, GPL is inappropriate; it forces all
the software created for *one client* to be distributed with source
code.

Also as the article says, non-copyleft code gets *more* contributions
than copylefted, because those services corporations are now free to use
and improve the code. There is a strong commercial incentive for
improvements to be rolled back into the code base, because maintaining a
forked version of a project is expensive, especially when it's not your
primary money-earner :)

As for LGPL, it's technical shortcomings are indeed problematic,
specifically:

  "The scope of the LGPL is too coarse-grained. The scope is furthermore
  open to interpretation. It is limited to some fuzzy notion of
  functional entities ("a collection of software functions and/or data
  prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs")."

I gather it's this "open to interpretation" problem which currently
means LGPL'ed code cannot be used in Apache projects.


--Jeff


> Damian
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Licensing (Re: [cli] new command line interface library...)

[Ed Korthof <ed...@apache.org>]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:16:05PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> As for LGPL, it's technical shortcomings are indeed problematic,
> specifically:
> 
>   "The scope of the LGPL is too coarse-grained. The scope is furthermore
>   open to interpretation. It is limited to some fuzzy notion of
>   functional entities ("a collection of software functions and/or data
>   prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs")."
> 
> I gather it's this "open to interpretation" problem which currently
> means LGPL'ed code cannot be used in Apache projects.

A few years ago, I was surprised when I went back to gnu.org to re-read
the LGPL -- and I noticed the name had been changed from the "Library
GPL" to the "Lesser GPL" ... after reading it, that seems a fair
description.  I've seen some long discussions of the LGPL amoung the ASF
members interested in licenses -- iirc, the problems include
difficulties with maintenence releases and the fact that the LGPL is
ultimately still viral (it's just less virulent).

I don't know if there's a publicly posted explanation of this, but I
could ask around (there was some talk of this, a while back, but
ultimately istr it was left to lie for political reasons -- most of the
ASF folks are not really interested in getting into arguments over
licenses, just in writing software).

take care --

Ed


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: Licensing (Re: [cli] new command line interface library...)

[Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>]

Exactly.

That is my case and the case of several friends of mine.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:jeff@socialchange.net.au]
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:16 AM
> 
> ...
> 
> Also as the article says, non-copyleft code gets *more* contributions
> than copylefted, because those services corporations are now free to use
> and improve the code. There is a strong commercial incentive for
> improvements to be rolled back into the code base, because maintaining a
> forked version of a project is expensive, especially when it's not your
> primary money-earner :)
>
> ...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>