Re: AW: License proposal

Sounds like someone need to propose a JGPL to gnu.org ;-)

Roger C. Soares wrote:

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