RE: AW: License proposal

RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposalSo just to clarify, I think (dangerous,
I know) that the gist of all this would be that _if_ we license Barracuda
under LGPL, and someone wanted to create their own custom version of it (ie.
not merely using or extending it via application classes, but actually
creating a custom build eg. "Barracuda++"), then should they choose to
create some product "FishBait" that uses Barracuda++, they could still
release FishBait however they wanted, -BUT- LGPL would apply to Barracuda++,
meaning they would have to have the jars separate and make their code
changes accessible per the LGPL license...

Is that how other people are hearing this?

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 Barr Bill P
  Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:22 PM
  To: '[email protected]'
  Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal




  >That said, I could see products (like IDE plugins) built on _top_ of
Barracuda, and I think that is completely valid. Whatever license we come up
with needs to support that notion (and I _think_ LGPL does, but we do need
to clarify).

  LGPL, BSD and Apache licenses do support that notion. GPL does not. That's
why the Apache-style license has been so popular with software vendors
foraying into this field. They don't need to co-release proprietary source
or extensions if they don't want to.