Re: License proposal

LGPL sounds okay to me.

-shawn

Christian Cryder wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> Ok, I've heard back from most of the contributors, and all are willing to
> change the license. The question now becomes: what license should we change
> it to?
> 
> We've discussed this a bit in the past, and I think there was a fair amount
> of consensus that something like LGPL would be best. In addition, in order
> to host our project on ObjectWeb we need to be LGPL.
> 
> SO...I'd like to propose that at a minimum we switch the license to LGPL.
> Are there any significant reasons NOT to do this?
> 
> Second, we might also want to consider a dual license - if we ever think we
> will need to also support another license, now's the time to change it. I
> had originally been thinking that we might want to also license the source
> under a BSD style license (ie. in case we ever get the opportunity to set up
> a portal on Jakarta or something like that). However, after discussions with
> a number of individuals, I'm not really sure that is worth pursuing at this
> point. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
> 
> I guess what I'm leaning towards at this point is simply switching the
> license to LGPL and calling it good. If you have any thoughts, now's the
> time to comment...
> 
> Christian
> ----------------------------------------------
> Christian Cryder
> Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
> Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
> ----------------------------------------------
> "Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda