RE: AW: License proposal

At 01:33 PM 1/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>With BSD, you basically have zero say in what happens to the code, downstream.

Exactly.

Imagine a scenario where some company takes the Barracuda code, forks it, 
calls it "Subverta", markets the hell out of it, and it starts to gain 
mindshare.  Now the Barracuda project is left holding the bag because it is 
incompatible with the heavily marketed Subverta product and who want to 
waste time with an incompatible version of a popular software package?

I'm not saying that this is likely to happen, but who knows?  I never 
guessed we'd ever get the source back from Lutris, so who is to say how 
likely something is?  The LGPL simply guarantees that this can't 
happen.  If we want Barracuda to be free and protected for use by the 
Barracuda community then no license other than the LGPL is appropriate.

Jake

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christian Cryder [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:08 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
>
>Given this, are there any compelling reasons why we shouldn't go with BSD 
>instead of LGPL? Anyone have any comments?
>
>Christian
>----------------------------------------------
>Christian Cryder
>Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
>Project Chair, BarracudaMVC - 
><http://barracudamvc.org/>http://barracudamvc.org
>----------------------------------------------
>"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] 
>[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Barr Bill P
>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:06 PM
>To: '[email protected]'
>Subject: RE: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
>
>
>So it looks like we _could_ choose BSD and still be hosted at ObjectWeb.
>
>The BSD basically says, "Do what you want, we don't care. We're also not 
>liable. Just mention us in your derivative works."