Re: Swixml 1.1 and LGPL

Hi Wolf,

The biggest issue that I have noticed with open source projects
is to attract people to really use the software.

Changing the license may have a damping effect on that. 

Regards,
Kris Leite
IMC








Wolf Paulus wrote:

> A quick reply to Michael's post:
>
> Apache is currently in the process of re-writing its license itself:
> http://www.sdtimes.com/news/096/story4.htm
>
> I have met with Marc Fleuy (founder of JBOSS) this week. Marc 
> convinced me that the apache license leads to instability in the code 
> because changes can be made but don’t have to be shared.
>
> The license for Swixml 1.0 is not going to change. However, going 
> forward we may change to LGPL.
>
> -- 
> 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.
> On Feb 20, 2004, at 6:56 AM, 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://carlsbadcubes.com/mailman/listinfo/forum_carlsbadcubes.com
>
> .
>