Re: Digest Number 3025

Hi Liyu,

Thank you for the information.

It seems that we can update CPL with EPL to bring things up to date.

The other license used by WTL was Microsoft Permissive License. As far as I
can see, it was now renamed Microsoft Public License (
http://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL), so we could use it as well.

If I had to choose, I'd probably go with MS-PL. I am interested to hear
what other people have to say on this matter, so please let me know!

Thanks,
Nenad




On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Liyu Liu [email protected] [wtl] <
[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Nenad:
>
> Yes. There are valid concern with CPL. We didn't realize that WTL hasn't
> change for so long!
>
> CPL was official deprecated awhile ago.  So it is probably not going to go
> well with companies care about license status. License author of CPL
> replaced it with EPL. The main change is removal of the patent retaliation
> in CPL besides cosmetic changes per FSF.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EPL
>
> Another Microsoft open source project WiX decided a while ago to go from
> CPL to MS-RL instead
> http://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2012/8/20/the-wix-toolset-license/
>
> It is probably best keep the CPL for a period so that companies and
> development teams already using don't get the rude awakening by a sudden
> change they don't have control. Then layout the transition plan and hear it
> from the community about choices. The owner and contributors surely have
> the final say.
>
> Liyu
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> There is 1 message in this issue.
>>
>> Topics in this digest:
>>
>> 1a. Re: Licensing for WTL 9.0?
>>     From: Nenad Stefanović
>>
>>
>> Message
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> 1a. Re: Licensing for WTL 9.0?
>>     Posted by: "Nenad Stefanović" [email protected] nenad_stefanovic
>>     Date: Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:30 am ((PST))
>>
>> Hi Jed,
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Since WTL is not distributed by MS any more, I thought that we can
>> continue
>> using just CPL on SourceForge. We can still use MS-PL, if needed.
>>
>> Is there any specific issue why you are asking this? I would be interested
>> to hear it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nenad
>>
>> p.s. I don't know what was the problem with posting - even this one
>> appeared after 4 days.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, jb_ni_dev-/[email protected] [wtl] <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> >
>> > Congratulations again on the release of WTL 9.0.
>> >
>> >
>> > I have a question about licensing:  Is WTL 9.0 distributed under both
>> the
>> > Microsoft Public License (MS-PL) and the Common Public License (CPL) as
>> > older versions were?  The Sourceforge download page references only the
>> > CPL.  The Wikipedia page has been updated to state the latest stable
>> > release is 9.0, and still references both the MS-PL and CPL, but this
>> does
>> > not strike me as definitive.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for your help.
>> >
>> >
>> > Best Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> > Jed
>> >
>> >
>> > PS.  I attempted to post this a little while back, but it does not seem
>> to
>> > have worked, so I am trying again. Apologies if it ends up doubled.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Messages in this topic (2)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Yahoo Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information and is
> intended only for the use of intended recipient(s). Any dissemination,
> distribution or duplication of this communication without prior written
> consent is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error
> please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its
> entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.
>
>  
>