On 12/28/05, Tom Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thoughts? Am I just being paranoid? :-)
Hey - you're not being paranoid if they're _actually_ out to get you :-) Seriously: As far as I can see, yes, you're being paranoid (caveat: IANAL either) >From http://dojotoolkit.org/community/licensing.shtml, Dojo is dual licensed. The end user can choose under which license they wish to use Dojo, and one of the options is BSD. In choosing to use Dojo under the BSD license, the end user is not/cannot be bound by the requirements of a license they have not agreed to (in this case, the AFL). Django is BSD licensed, ergo, no incompatibility. Submarining is not really a problem here. I would imagine that the most likely mode for adopting Dojo would be to make it Dojo a prerequisite for use of AJAX functionality within Django itself (ie., installation instructions include a "step N: install Dojo, download here"). If this is the case, submarining is a non-issue, as the end user is the licensee of both Django and Dojo. However, even if Django decided to "absorb" the Dojo codebase as part of its own, there still shouldn't be a submarining problem. This is the use case that is the cause of the relicensing noise on the Dojo mailing list. There are 2 reasons: 1) The Dojo project requires all submitters to sign over copyright ownership. Therefore, the Dojo project can cleanly offer whatever licensing terms it likes. It offers BSD as an licensing option. Therefore, Django could use Dojo under the BSD terms code as long as the BSD licensing clause remained in any absorbed code. 2) The discussion is over AFL->GPL relicensing, which may/may not be incompatible (let the lawyers bust that one out). This is a separate discussion to AFL->BSD relicensing; to my reading, it would be a non-issue, since the BSD doesn't impose, and the AFL doesn't require any restrictions that aren't available. Yours, Russ Magee
