FW: AW: License proposal

And this just in from Christophe at OW...

So it looks like we _could_ choose BSD and still be hosted at ObjectWeb.
----------------------------------------------
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
----------------------------------------------
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"


-----Original Message-----
From: Christophe Ney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:36 PM
To: Christian Cryder; Francois LETELLIER; [email protected]
Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal


Hi Christian,

Extending an abstract class is not a problem by itself if you do it to write
an application. Now if you extend the Barracuda library to provide another
library, then things get more fuzzy and extending a class instead of
implementing an interface is not what will make the difference.

Some ObjectWeb project are now under BSD, so LGPL is no longer a
requirement.

Thanks,
Christophe

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Cryder [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: mercredi 7 janvier 2004 20:03
To: [email protected]; Francois LETELLIER;
[email protected]
Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal


Christophe or Francios,

There's been quite a discussion on the Barracuda list about the implications
of LGPL. I think a number of folks (none of whom are lawyers) are concerned
that LGPL might be functionally equivalent to GPL when it comes to Java.
Here are the particularly relevant emails discussing this:

http://barracudamvc.org/lists/archives/barracuda/2004-January/007287.html
http://barracudamvc.org/lists/archives/barracuda/2004-January/007289.html
http://barracudamvc.org/lists/archives/barracuda/2004-January/007290.html
http://barracudamvc.org/lists/archives/barracuda/2004-January/007291.html
http://barracudamvc.org/lists/archives/barracuda/2004-January/007292.html

The burning question we have is: "what about the cases where Java code not
only _imports_ an LGPL library, but also writes code that _extends_ LGPL
classes?" This latter case is a common occurrence (by design) in Barracuda,
as developers extend Abstract base classes to implement event handlers.

It seems like the only way we can move to ObjectWeb is by adopting LGPL,
right?

So what we're looking for here is some assurance that LGPL would not require
people using Barracuda to release their own code under LGPL as well. I'm
guessing that you guys have done some legal analysis of the LGPL, and I'm
hoping you could address some of these questions.

Thanks much,
Christian
----------------------------------------------
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - http://barracudamvc.org
----------------------------------------------
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Cryder [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:14 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
>
>
> 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