RE: AW: License proposal

Just an additional comment...

The text of the LGPL can be found here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
The text of the BSD license can be found here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

I was originally thinking of a dual license, using both LGPL and BSD. One of
the ObjectWeb guys commented on this, and I found his reply helpful...

> Hi Christian,
>
> I don't quite understand what your intention is wrt licensing.
> You may technically release Barracuda under both BSD and LGPL.  You
> probably have a good reason,  which I'm not aware of, to investigate this
> possibility. The thing is, BSD is so permissive, anybody has the right to
> license derivative works of BSD'ed software under another license,
> including LGPL. On the other hand, LGPL requires that derivative works be
> distributed under an LGPL-compatible license, which BSD is not.
> This means that BSD software does not need to be licensed under LGPL,
> since the rights granted by BSD are a superset of those given by LGPL.
> Conversely, modifications in LGPL software cannot be contributed to the
BSD
> version, because they are required to remain under LGPL.
>
> The BSD license is distinct from the Apache Public License. A main
> difference is that if you opt for the BSD, you remain the owner of all
> copyrights, whereas if you chose APL, you transfer the copyrights to the
> Apache Software Foundation. This latter option is not appropriate
> in your case.

So from my perspective, we definitely want the copyright ownership to stay
with the original authors (that keeps everything protected from any one
group co-opting the project in a direction that might not be beneficial to
everyone else). So, both LGPL and BSD would fit that bill, whereas something
like Apache Public License would not.

The second thing we want to require is for extensions and improvements to be
submitted back to the community. LGPL requires this, at least in the sense
that it requires the source for any derived works to be made available under
the same terms.

The only real question I have about LGPL centers on "derivative works." As I
read the license, if you extend of modify Barracuda, you would need to make
those changes available under LGPL as well.

-- (LGPL snippet) --
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it,
thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such
modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you
also meet all of these conditions:

    a) The modified work must itself be a software library.

    b) You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    c) You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
all third parties under the terms of this License.
--------------------

So my question is: what about derived work where you simply _extend_ the
underlying library classes? For instance, what if someone creates their own
version of the ApplicationGateway? If they change the class itself, then
that clearly constitutes a derivative work. But what if they merely extend
it? I am tempted to say that's a derivative work as well, except for the
fact that there are many places in Barracuda which are designed to be
extended by the user.

For instance, what about things like abstract classes (think event handlers,
in particular) that MUST be extended in the end user application. In a case
like this, I certainly DONT think that extending/implementing a Barracuda
event handler constitutes creating a derivative work; if it did, then
section c could be construed to mean any app which uses Barracuda must
itself be licensed under LGPL.

SO...I'd like some input on the whole derivative work thing...is there
anyone who has done real legal analysis of LGPL implications? My question
here really boils down to "what constitutes a derivative work?" Especially
in an OO language like Java where you are designing things to be extended.
Maybe the answer is that "as long as your class simply _extends_ an LGPL
class, you are fine"...I'm ok with that. But does the LGPL license say that?
Or does it say more than that?

Perhaps someone at ObjectWeb can comment on this (Christophe, Francois,
Matthieu, Alfred?)

Christian
----------------------------------------------
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
----------------------------------------------
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Thelmo Loisio
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda