RE: AW: AW: License proposal

Hi Jake !

Yes, GPL + commercial licensing IS working (like MySQL) if ALL THE CODE IS
COPYRIGHT BY ONE ENTITY ! In the case of Barracuda (where we have several
contributors) this DOES NOT WORK !

Greetings.

Alfred

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Kjome [mailto:[email protected]] 
Posted At: Freitag, 09. Jänner 2004 07:03
Posted To: Barracuda
Conversation: AW: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal
Subject: Re: AW: AW: [Barracuda] License proposal

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