Re: AW: License proposal

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 13:34, Madl Alfred wrote:
> LGPL is "sticky" where BSD is not. Means: LGPL code ALWAYS has to stay
> LGPL. No closed source derivations are allowed of LGPL code. BSD allows
> closed source forking (like IBM or Sun are doing with Apache and Tomcat
> which are based on the Apache license which also allows that). I think
> this is the main difference...

That could prevent some private (company) to found the development of
the project.

I don't know how the license issue was addressed by two projects on OW
(ASM and JOTM) which was recently licensed under BSD license to make
them compatible with the Apache foundation. I even don't know which was
their license before.

But this is the only real issue. If it possible, desirable or
undesirable to have this opportunity.

Regards
-- 
Thelmo