Re: Plans for next release?
Fabian Fagerholm <[email protected]> Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:03:09 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.albatross.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1091858589.3092.140.camel@kernel> |
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 09:17 -0400, Michael C. Neel wrote: > We are going with the BSD, the newer version. The no endorsement clause > is important to the powers that be, which is understandable. Plus, this > is the license of Albatross, which must be maintained as well, and > solves any possible license conflict issues. Excellent; this will certainly allow code to be shared freely among the participants. > Since we are a company that mixes closed and open source code in a > project, I am not a fan of using the GPL. I do not think it's needed to > have a clause to require modification to be provided back in source. [...] In this case, I agree with you. With the GPL, you can always license the code with completely different license for a particular customer -- provided you have copyright on all the code in question. Since this is not the case for Albatross, BSD seems like a good choice. > In general I like the BSD license because it protects the developers and > gives freedom to users, where as the the GPL places requirments upon the > users. I do believe that freedom cannot exist without requiring responsibility. The GPL incorporates that requirement into the license, while the BSD license trusts everyone to have that responsibility anyway. In that sense, the BSD license is quite idealistic -- which is commendable. Well, I'm happy to say that we have exchanged more than two emails discussing this, without having included a single personal insult! That seems to be rare these days ;) > We are fedora people here, so we can't cope with anything debian. J/K > =p. Nevertheless, any improvements coming from my Debian work will be offered to you, so that at least you'll have to cope with ;) > It might be a week before we get the project going (legal can be > slow to read two paragraphs, lol), but we've used SF in the past so > we'll probably be lazy and just use it now. That's good. However, I'm a little surprised and worried about the fact that the Object Craft people haven't participated more in this discussion. After all, if Object Craft decides not to join in on the SF project, we are talking about a fork here. -- Fabian Fagerholm <[email protected]>
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBBFHCd76VUNpZBmeIRAvhqAJ4+NfXWnAHEtpMsr/A8k18eG8+j2QCdF7FP Dm8tP0lxcOFl8eGOh9MYfsU= =cGkw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----