Hello Jesse, On 9/18/07, Jesse Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (....) > > I can relicense everything I've done under a free, non-copyleft > > license like the ISC license if that is what the project wants. It's > > not ideal for me, as per above, and if the project official position > > is to disallow the GPL and even discourage the LGPL that puts me in a > > though spot. > > I (kind of) started this thread, based on Yen-Ju's questions about > certain licenses. I just wanted clarification on what licenses we > were using, and to make sure that we could use what code we already > had in the most flexible ways possible. I don't think anyone here has > any problems with LGPL code in SVN (I know I don't) other than from > the standpoint of integrating that code with other code -- ie: if we > wanted to then combine that code with Apache or CDDL or MPL code, > we're out of luck. With BSD (or MIT) we don't have that problem, > hence my push for that license. >
I understand the concern, that's why I also raised the issue of the recent events concerning BSD code in GPL applications (between Theo and Eben Moglen, amongst others). Depending on the final status of this it would also mean that the BSD license would not be compatible with CDDL, amongst others. Until recently the general view was that you could pretty much use BSDL code in any body of work regardless of the license, but from what I've been reading this interpretation is no longer held by important key members of the BSD community (which doesn't mean they are right, just as Eben Moglen being a lawyer is no guarantee either). Another point is that if you want to use GPL code you are also out of luck is you choose the BSDL (can't use it without changing the license), so in the end it's a choice between using CDDL/APL/ISC code *or* using GPL code. I agree that something like the LGPL/ISC is better forlibraries, frameworks and the like, of course. > GPL is the only license we really try to avoid due to the way in > which we believe we will be using Etoile -- primarily as components > which will be embedded/linked to documents. It's the same reason much > of GNUstep itself is under LGPL. True, that's a good reason, although I suppose there will also exist "applications" in the regular sense? Or maybe not, I'm aware of the service-based architecture of Étoilé but I'll have to read the project page more in depth. > The reasoning of using LGPL instead > of GPL applies to applications as well, since we're trying to move to > a less application-centric model. If we want to convert a chunk of > code from an application to an embedded component, and that app is > under the GPL, we begin to run into some legal snags. David did a > little write-up on that in our Licensing Philosophy here: http:// > www.etoile-project.org/etoile/mediawiki/index.php?title=EtoileWiki:About > I have read it. I understood it. As normal given my rather fixed views on the licensing subject, I don't completely agree. It's a good document, the points are well made, but in the end this is a bit of a rehash of the age-long debate about BSDL and GPL. The same points put forward in the Licensing Philosophy could be applied to any software project in existence given that in general any application could be used to make a framework. I understand the component-architecture being proposed but such a strong support for the BSD license as being "ideal" doesn't take into account that the additional requirements of the GPL in terms of applications aren't something that most developers consider a burden but a desired effect of the licensing. Again, this is merely a personal opinion, I know I'm a minority in every aspect here and I'm confortable with that, but since the topic is being discussed I just wanted to give my opinion. > All that said, if any given author wants their code to remain under > the original terms, that is entirely within their rights and I would > never try to coerce them into a different license. I personally > believe that having good contributors who care about the project and > who write good code is more important than having everything under a > particular license. We can find ways to write around license > compatibilities, but we can only do that if we have good developers > to begin with. As I said I'm willing to relicense the little I have done if it's needed, and I agree with your sentiment. I just find the reasons often mentioned not a particularity of Étoilé but an extension of each person opinion on the GPL vs. BSDL merits and advantages. This extends to my position as well. Best regards, Frederico Muñoz _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
