Re: AW: License proposal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> 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?

I think so - and I personally believe its what we want: Everybody can ship 
barracuda, can use its classes in closed/commercial software - but 
enhancements to the core have to be released. While the latter one is 
diffcult to ensure, at least nobody can take it and say "Look, we've got this 
cool MVC Framework SHARK, and you only have to pay $1000 for it".

Diez

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//GUBBUNnEs5xWG4RAoRbAJ9/hr1GNFFDQe97cqExqDTlHS0cXQCgmpQf
zO0pXfZUnyFD27nIyhonzwI=
=pNB8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----