Re: AW: AW: License proposal

I'm +1 for LGPL as well.

My only concern was the terminology used in the license is vague when 
applied to Java code, but I definitely agree with the intention. 
Vagueness is something you want to stay away from if it were to ever be 
tested in court.

-shawn

Madl Alfred 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.
>  
> 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."
>