AW: AW: License proposal

Just to avoid confusion:
 
LGPL requires you to LGPL and open source any modifications of the
ORIGINAL SOURCE if you distribute the modifications (e.g. ship them to a
customer, etc.). Nothing else !!! So it just prevents distributions of
closed source forks. Of course you can develop / sell / ship / whatever
your own closed source applications / subclasses / etc. WITHOUT having
them to be LGPL ! So you can produce a "Clownfish" library consisting of
ORIGINAL Barracuda but having some closed source / non-LGPL extensions.
Thats OK. But you can NOT produce a closed source / non-LGPL "aducarraB"
library consisting of modified "Barracuda" code. You can even have /
distribute your own modifications of Barracuda, but if your changes are
NOT ACCEPTED by the original project, you are still free to distribute
your modifications (with source of Barracuda modifications course).
 
GPL is a very different story ! Everything using / referencing /
importing / extending / etc. also MUST BE GPL and open source. Thats why
GPL-ed libraries can NOT (or NOT NORMALLY) be used for commercial
projects / products.
 
BSD DOES allow distribution of closed source / different license forks.
 
Hope that helps.
 
So I am still +1 for LGPL !
 
Alfred
 
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Andrew Hill [mailto:[email protected]] 
Bereitgestellt: Donnerstag, 08. Jänner 2004 17:17
Bereitgestellt in: Barracuda
Unterhaltung: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
Betreff: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal


I would suggest that would apply equally well to *any* company whose
revenue model is based on creating packaged software intended for sale
to more than a single customer. If all those customers had the right to
resell or give away then revenue pretty much becomes limited to sale of
support contracts and the like. 
 
For a custom developed solution for a single customer it may not be so
much of an issue as the revenue there is usually derived from hours
billed and the product is customer specific - though companies still
wouldnt want their competitors to see all their nifty coding tricks (or
to have them pointing out all their mistakes to the customer)! From the
customers point of view it would be a good thing though, as with the
source available and rights to modify as they wish they could call in a
different consultant to maintain the system if the first wasn't to their
satisfaction... 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Barr Bill P
Sent: Thursday, 8 January 2004 21:35
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal




>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?

An acquaintance posed the difference this way: "From a revenue
perspective, Microsoft would use LGPL, Apache or BSD licensed software.
It would never use GPL licensed software."