On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM, David Whitehurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I don't believe we'll be looking to EULA's considering most people hate them!: http://xkcd.org/501/ ;-) > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ cas-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
