Re: Swixml 1.1 and LGPL

Wolf owns swixml... he can put any license on it whenever he wants.
he can't change the license on products already out in the wild but 
there's nothing to say all distribution of product x from today forwards 
is under license y.  Yes it woudl lead to confustion if you did that in 
without updating the version at the same time... but it's still legal. 
Not only that he can release it under as many simultaneous licenses as 
he wants. Many companies do this.  Release stuff under GPL but offer a 
seperate licese for companies who wish to use their product without 
being subject to the gpl... of course that's usually in exchange for money.

my vote if changing licenses between releases is to increment the 
version number slightly just to elimate confusion.


As for the actual license chosen. if sharing changes is the concen 
BSD/MIT license covers that just fine and is probably the lease 
restrictive license type out there.  It also has the advantage of being 
very easy to understand.  That being said, I'm completely fine with 
LGPL. An advantage it has over MIT is that it explicitly mentions source 
code..whereas MIT just says you need to be able to tweak it but doesn't 
mention providing access to the source code itself. hmm never noticed 
that before.

-Kate

Brian P Michael wrote:

>>I'm currently working on the upcoming Swixml 1.1, which is mainly a
>>maintenance release.
>>
>>Still, I'm considering to switch the license from Apache to LGPL - if
>>you want to get the understandable version, read it here:
>>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
>>
>>Please let me now if you would have a problem with this.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Wolf Paulus
>>
>>C a r l s b a d   C u b e s
>>mailto:[email protected]
>>
>>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
>>This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
>>to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
>>privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
>>law.
>>If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
>>reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Forum mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://carlsbadcubes.com/mailman/listinfo/forum_carlsbadcubes.com
>>
>>    
>>
>Wolf,
>
>I think the Apache License is fine.
>
>Also, all copies of the current code are covered under Apache, which
>is a far less restrictive license.
>
>I do not believe you can change the current code's license structure to a
>more restrictive license.  That would actually be illegal and would actually
>break the terms of the Apache License itself.
>
>The Apache license provides for full commercialization of Swixml by the
>community, which I support. It also allows full use of product without
>distribution of modified code.
>
>One of the reasons I chose Swixml was for it's license structure.
>
>I DO NOT SUPPORT the switch in licensing.
>
>Nor do I feel that you can legally switch to a more restrictive license for
>all code that is already under Apache License.
>
>Now, with that said, any new code that is created by you could be licensed
>under any new license terms, but the core code must keep it's original
>license structure.
>
>If you switch licensing of the core code, you will find a re-release of
>SWIXML released under the SWIXML name with the current Apache License.  In
>this manner, SWIXML would stay with the Apache License.
>
>Once you let the Dog out, it's out.  That's the price of open source.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Brian P Michael
>[email protected] 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Forum mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://carlsbadcubes.com/mailman/listinfo/forum_carlsbadcubes.com
>
>
>  
>