RE: AW: License proposal

> 2. In the context of the article mentioned above, why does the Barracuda
> community oppose an Apache/BSD-style license? Is there a real fear of
> exploitation?

Just to comment on this...there's certainly no fear of it on my part. I
really don't think anyone could commercialize Barracuda in a way that would
endanger the product (ie. even if they created a Barracuda++ and charged for
it...that's fine with me. Have fun storming the castle boys...)

The biggest issue for me is that if we want to be hosted on ObjectWeb, we
have to be LGPL. So if we opt for something else, then I think that nixes an
OW portal. That's the most significant implication in my mind.

The other isssue worth noting is that some of the libraries Barracuda
depends on (including XMLC and Jivan) are already under LGPL. So if there
was some kind of "sleeper flaw" in LGPL, we'd still be at risk even if we
used something else (I don't think this is the case, btw; I'm just
mentioning it since it hasn't been brought up yet).

> 3. Does XMLC's LGPL status (I think) have any implications on Barracuda?

Heh. Well I guess you just mentioned it. :-)

I don't think it does, since all we do is invoke it; we don't even really
extend it or anything. Of course if somebody were to take the LGPL to court
and some court were to rule that merely importing LGPL libraries constitutes
a derivative work, then there could be a problem.

> IMOHO, even blatant commercial exploitation does not detract from
> the open-source project at all. The community still has it's code
> and can continue to add new functionality. This is certainly
> debatable and I do understand the opposing view that wants (and has
> the right) to have any modifications re-submitted to the community.
> I would point to Struts for a good example, though. Many software
> vendors now use Struts in their commercial products. I believe this
> has led to an increased adoption and acceptance of Struts by the
> greater development community and thus to more activity and
> advancement of the open-source project. I don't think it has led
> to any real problems of exploitation.

You and I are on the same page here.

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 John Shields
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:42 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking for, well, a couple years now... I thought I'd
> throw my 2
> cents in on this important topic. First, I'd like to refer people to this
> article:
>
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
>
> The short article talks mostly to the GPL, but has interesting
> commentary on
> the *percieved* fear of commercial exploitation and on a few
> problems with the
> LGPL.
>
> As related to the issue at hand for Barracuda, I still have a few
> outstanding
> questions (some repeated from previous posts) and comments:
>
> 1. While the notion of "import ..." seems to have been put to
> rest, exactly
> what are the implications of extending LGPL code?
>
> Even though Barracuda is designed to be used this way, I still find myself
> thinking that extending a class creates a "derivative work". If so, my
> understanding is that the new class would need to be LGPL as
> well. If that's
> correct, then LGPL may not be the correct license. (Of course, the
> interface/plugin architecture discussed in the Slashdot thread
> may alleviate
> this problem.)
>
> 2. In the context of the article mentioned above, why does the Barracuda
> community oppose an Apache/BSD-style license? Is there a real fear of
> exploitation?
>
> I don't intend these questions to be rhetorical, I really am
> curious about the
> communities' opinion here. :-) IMOHO, even blatant commercial
> exploitation does
> not detract from the open-source project at all. The community
> still has it's
> code and can continue to add new functionality. This is certainly
> debatable and
> I do understand the opposing view that wants (and has the right)
> to have any
> modifications re-submitted to the community. I would point to
> Struts for a good
> example, though. Many software vendors now use Struts in their commercial
> products. I believe this has led to an increased adoption and
> acceptance of
> Struts by the greater development community and thus to more activity and
> advancement of the open-source project. I don't think it has led
> to any real
> problems of exploitation.
>
> 3. Does XMLC's LGPL status (I think) have any implications on Barracuda?
>
> Thanks!
>
> John
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda