Re: AW: License proposal

There was a discussion on slashdot about the LGPL being iqual to GPL for 
java code:

http://slashdot.org/developers/03/07/17/2257224.shtml

Cheers,
Roger.

--
Christian Cryder wrote:

>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
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Barracuda mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
>
>
>  
>