Benn: Also JBoss uses an End User License Agreement (EULA). I think this is a good idea especially for a "product". Instead of a JA-SIG stand-alone license, you could use a JA-SIG EULA for each product.
David On 11/18/08, David Whitehurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benn: > > This is so crazy! Let me share a situation I am dealing with now. I > am contracted for organization A to create enterprise architecture. > Organization B has more political clout so they force an Oracle > solution (identity management) on me for one specific application > suite. The Oracle solution uses it's own licence but tests their > product on version 2.0.52 for Apache. We use and have accepted > version 2.2.8 of Apache. This is just one of the constraints. So, > now my enterprise solution, using JBoss and the LGPL (includes all > these licenses) must be run on an IIS Windows server using a terminal > window to start and stop JBoss. They won't buy an NT Service wrapper. > > My issue as an evangelist and integrator of open source, is that the > licenses cause lots of confusion. People choose them incorrectly. > Or, they choose "something". Or they ignore them altogether. For > CAS, I would use a GNU license and maybe the LGPL. I think at least > there's strong legal intelligence behind it. And, I think that the > goal is to let us write and share software to be able to communicate > with computers in the most effective manner. And, by sharing what we > learn, things only get better. We've already made the wheel. We > should use it. > > I'm anxious to see what license is chosen. I'm starting a non-profit > organization and some open source projects with another friend and we > haven't chosen a license. We will model the organization much like > Apache but somewhat custom. I've been leaning towards the GNU > licenses. And, our stuff won't be an Apache product so why associate > with Apache. I think the license should support the goal and I > haven't hired a lawyer for this task yet. When I ultimately do loose > the cash for the lawyer, I'll share anything I find with all my > partners in crime. > > Please post here with any news. > > David > > On 11/18/08, Benn Oshrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --On November 18, 2008 8:37:16 AM -0500 Scott Battaglia > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ] We're looking at a license that provides more protection for > > ] contributors and adapters. I'm not actually on the working group > > ] looking into this, but I trust their judgment ;-) > > > > ] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Olivier Berger > > ] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ] > Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for change from BSD to > > ] > Apache2 ? > > > > In addition to the protection issue, there is also concern about license > > alignment with other open-source higher ed oriented projects. > > > > One of the questions that has come up is whether or not GPL style copyleft > > should be included. I'd be interested to hear if anybody has any strong > > opinions for or against, off list if you prefer. > > > > -Benn- > > _______________________________________________ > > cas-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev > > > _______________________________________________ cas-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
