Re: AW: AW: License proposal

 > Agreed.  I think all the Fud against LGPL has caused mass confusion
 > about what it really is.  It would be nice for the FSF to clarify things
 > a bit, though, and just make it painfully obvious what the LGPL allows
 > and doesn't allow.

Yes that would be great. Unfortunately it is obvious the FSF has no real 
interest in the LGPL and in fact would rather everyone use GPL.

-shawn

Jacob Kjome wrote:

> At 07:11 PM 1/8/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Although some projects license under the GPL, but then also have 
> separate commercial licensing.  MySQL is one of these as well as ZeroC ( 
> http://www.zeroc.com/ ).
> 
> <quote>
> Ice is free software, available with full source, and released under the 
> terms of the <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>GNU General 
> Public License (GPL).<http://www.zeroc.com/licensing.html> Commercial 
> licenses are available for customers who wish to use Ice for 
> closed-source software.
> </quote>
> 
> That seems to be the best of all worlds to me.  The source can't be 
> subverted and it is still usable for a fee in commercial applications.  
> How perfect is that?
> 
>> BSD DOES allow distribution of closed source / different license forks.
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>>
>> So I am still +1 for LGPL !
>>
> 
> Agreed.  I think all the Fud against LGPL has caused mass confusion 
> about what it really is.  It would be nice for the FSF to clarify things 
> a bit, though, and just make it painfully obvious what the LGPL allows 
> and doesn't allow.
> 
> Jake
> 
>> 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."
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Barracuda mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://barracudamvc.org/lists/listinfo/barracuda
>