Andreas Fink wrote: > > As far as going into direction of Apache, I clearly don't see any benefit. The only > benefit I see is the well known name but what does it bring us in reality? Nothing > really. As far as the license change goes, I don't see a need to change unless we > clearly come to the conclusion that Kannel must be part of the Apache "group". Thats > the only reason. So changing from Kannel license to apache license is not the > question to ask, the question to ask is do we want to go to Apache group or not.
right, we'll have this discussed today in the IRC #kannel chat at 2pm CET. > And changing the license would require every contributor's consensus on this. Which > means if one person says no, then his code can not be put under a new license > anyway. And also who is the contributor in some cases is not even clear. For example > recent work of Aarno on wap push stuff was done as an employee of Global Networks > (which means global networks has paid for this code and owns it), but there is older > code of Aarno as himself and under WapIT and maybe some other employers. Same goes > for many people on this list I guess. What I'm trying to say here, changing the > license type would open a pandora's box of question and only makes sense if there is > a very very strong reason to do. that's not right IMO. Wapme pays me too, but *all* code I produce for Kannel (which is sometime of good, sometime of poor quality ;) is under the Kannel license and Wapme has no right to claim it. Either you put the sources available to the project and hence waive off all commercial rights, or you leave it and do your things closed. BTW, I'm not willing to *change* the main semantic of the license, we all want to keep the BSD-style license. But we want to have *somebody* in charge (in terms of protecting the code) that exists, and WapIT does not exist. > In other words, unless someone can tell me WHY we are even thinking of changing the > licenses make's sense, I would say no to any change. So far I have not seen anyone > even mentioning any benefits. Once again. The code is under copyright of an entity that does not exist anymore. This has the effect that commercial companies (see Bruno's MS example, or an other I know from Finnland) are grapping the code and use them "as their property". Why? Because there is no living entity that could be a threat to them or even call them up and say: "guys, you better obey the license or we k.. you a.." That is why I want preliminary change to have "Kannel Group" stated as copyright owner and "protector of the code". Then we have to gain consensus how we can make this a real legal body, by either establishing the own foundation or group under the Apache umbrella. > Personally I see the Kannel Software Foundation as the better approach. It can be a > legal entity which then could sue Microsoft for borrowing the code without > mentioning their product is based on Kannel. Or a common consensus can override an > individual's veto and resolves issues. right. This is a legatime opinion, let's have this discussed online today while the IRC session! Stipe [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 Düsseldorf Tel: +49-211-74845-0 Fax: +49-211-74845-299 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- wapme.net - wherever you are
