Re: [jgroups-dev] [javagroups-users] JGroups license change ?

On 7/13/11 4:23 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> we just went thru a large software audit with an IP law team. LGPL 2.1 raised a bunch of flags with them for several reasons. Apache 2.0 or MIT licensing is much more preferable for commercial usage. We had to document in great detail responses to the following questions. LGPL licensing requires greater supporting documentation to be created and maintained and is very easy to be non compliant with. LGPL 3.0 is a complete poison pill for commercial usage and has not been widely adopted by many open source projects.


I didn't like LGPL 3.0 either, when I read it the first time. Didnt' 
study it carefully enough though, so I'd have to revisit it.


> LGPL 2.1 appears to have been written for non Java programs where libraries are linked into the executable. We had a number of discussions with the IP lawyers regarding how java programs use components via classpath. Their contention is that the resulting application is still considered a derivative work since it depends on the presence of the LGPL binaries in order to operate as intended.


Hmm, I thought the FSF clarified this: 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html, and this would be OK...

>  The Apache 2.0 license is much less restrictive and has a lot fewer 
gray areas than LGPL.
>
> PLEASE CHANGE THE LICENSING FOR JGROUPS !!!!!!!!!


Noted your vote, thanks,

-- 
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups (http://www.jgroups.org)
JBoss / Red Hat

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric 
Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup 
Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, 
optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Javagroups-development mailing list