RE: AW: License proposal

>>Imho it would be a "bad thing" for you to restrict your users to
>>creating only free (or reverse engineerable/modifiable) applications
and
>>would certainly limit the popularity of Barracuda.

Agreed!
--KD


>>> [email protected] 2004/01/07 15:12:30 >>>
Ive been reading through these posts and links regarding the issue of
LGPL
and Java, and must admit to being more confused about the implications
than
I was before I started. (Not to mention that I had until today thought
LGPL
meant what people thought it meant (and still does for C from what I
gather)).

Does using an LGPL library/framework with a Java app require the user
to
make their product LGPL???
Does it require them to allow their product to be reverse-engineered?

If so I would strongly recomend that you dont go LGPL.
While free software is great and all that (just like Mum and apple
pie), I
would have thought it better that you allow people to also build
proprietary
applications using Barracuda (like they can with Struts under the
Apache
license). Imho it would be a "bad thing" for you to restrict your users
to
creating only free (or reverse engineerable/modifiable) applications
and
would certainly limit the popularity of Barracuda.

If not ignore the above ;-)

So what IS the story with LGPL?

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Diez B. Roggisch
Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:57
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal


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

> The only way to keep Barracuda truly free is by using the LGPL.  I
think
we
> have to have clear reasons of why not to use it if we are to
actually
> choose a license other than LGPL.

I agree with this - there's a lot of LGPLed java stuff out there that
isn't
rendered useless by its license. I have no deeper insight into the
motivations of the apache-group, but I can imagine that they like the
idea
of
having the opportunity to turn something into a commercial product -
so
_they_ might have their troubles with LGPL.

So - as long as we don't want to be part of jakarta, I still opt for
LGPL.

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

iD8DBQE/+9fOBUNnEs5xWG4RAmQzAJ9vGxIO2lZVy0JxD+52fskQOu28/ACfSpDx
YUwN9DAXbgQuvwFUsyHq6yk=
=qkPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

_______________________________________________
Barracuda mailing list
[email protected] 
http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
---------------------------------------------------------------
“All views or opinions expressed in this electronic message 
and its attachments are the view of the sender and do not 
necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the 
Provincial Government Western Cape (“the PGWC”).  
No employee of the WCPG is entitled to conclude a 
binding contract on behalf of the PGWC unless he/she 
is an Accounting Officer of the PGWC, or his or her 
authorised representative.

The information contained in this message and its attachments 
may be confidential or privileged and is for the use of the 
named recipient only, except where the sender specifically 
states otherwise.  If you are not the intended recipient you 
may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.”