Fwd: JSecurity and the Apache 2.0 license

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
> Date: July 10, 2009 6:59:03 AM PDT
> To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
> Subject: Fwd: JSecurity and the Apache 2.0 license
>
> Agreement from Jeremy
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jeremy Haile <jh...@fastmail.fm>
> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: JSecurity and the Apache 2.0 license
> To: Les Hazlewood <le...@hazlewood.com>
> Cc: Allan Ditzel <al...@gmail.com>, Tim Veil <timveil@fastmail.fm 
> >, Peter Ledbrook <pe...@cacoethes.co.uk>
>
>
> I agree with, support and approve converting any and all of my  
> JSecurity contributions, including my copyrighted code, from the  
> existing LGPL license to the Apache 2.0 license.
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> I liked that part of the LGPL too (discouraging - although not
> strictly preventing - forks), but I think adoption is better.
>
> So, that brings me to my next point.
>
> We can only switch from one license to the other if all current
> copyright holders agree to switch.  The only people who hold copyright
> to this project and have committed code are on this email thread.
>
> So, could you all please send me a brief reply that states "I agree
> with, support and approve  converting any and all of my JSecurity
> contributions, including my copyrighted code, from the existing LGPL
> license to the Apache 2.0 license". ?
>
> I can't make this change in the project until each person on this list
> sends me that reply.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Les
>
> On 3/11/08, Jeremy Haile <jh...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I don't object.  I liked LGPL since it prevents forks, copying code,
> etc. - but who really cares.  Let's just open it up.  I think that's
> best for adoption rate.
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>
> Any objections moving from LGPL to Apache 2.0?
>
> I'm thinking this will allow a much greater possibility for adoption
> as JSecurity would instantly be available to all Apache projects as
> well as any other projects based on the Apache license.  Technically
> so are LGPL products, but its a little bit of a gray area for Apache
> open source projects.
>
> I know when I did consulting for Sun, a project team had to go through
> a legal approval process to adopt an LGPL library when they were
> working on a new internal project.  Not so with Apache 2.0 - that is
> always fair game without approval.
>
> I originally chose LGPL for its 'contribute back to the project'
> mentality.  That is, LGPL states that if you make modifications to the
> source code, you must make those source code changes publicly
> available.  This usually always means sending those changes back to
> the project.  Apache 2.0 has no such stipulation - it just requires
> that the license and copyright remain in-tact and distributed with
> your product.
>
> The only source code contributions that we've realistically seen in
> the last 3 years have been those that have been made by users via Jira
> tasks (e.g. submitted patches, suggestions, etc), so I'm not so sure
> that the LGPL is providing us with any extra benefit.  We'll still get
> those submissions under Apache 2.0.
>
> By going to Apache 2.0 however, we could see our adoption shoot
> through the roof.  We may actually be a candidate to be an adopted
> Apache project one of these days too, which could be cool :)
>
> Any objections?
>
> - Les
>
>
>
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!