I didn't mean that the gallery would be under LGPL specifically, but
something akin to it. As I understand, there are really three types of
licensing for intellectual property:
1) Owner restricts access to the property, and charges to use it
(Microsoft,
SCO, etc.)
2) Owner allows others to use and enhance the property, but must
release
enhancements likewise (GPL)
3) Owner allows others to use and enhance the property, and
enhancements can
be kept (LGPL, Apache)
I meant that I favor the latter option, since many can use and
contribute to a shared library, while leveraging it in products to make
a living by charging for it. As a user of that library, it is then in
my interest to contribute to its maintenance and enhancement because
others will then support and build upon those enhancements, and we all
win. I agree that the ASL 1.1 seems too software-specific for an image
gallery, considering its explicit reference to source and binary code.
The best approach would seem to be the creation of a new Apache Media
License for images, documentation, and other non-code property.
So, now that the LGPL issue is clarified, would something like this make
sense as an Apache project? Since Apache is all about providing the
common tools and technologies necessary to build Web apps (and other
apps as well), I think it fits. If not, where would such an effort
belong? I'm against just starting another lone project on SourceForge,
because it would just get lost in the crowd.
JayZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apache Gallery Project
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Jay Zylstra wrote:
> 4) Start an LGPL-like project where many share in the free creation
> and use of the artwork
>
> Artwork project (http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/artwork), the
> Apache Gallery project would be licensed under Apache's more liberal
> LGPL-like
You need to research the licencing a bit. The Apache licence is far more
libreral than LGPL. There have been questions on LGPL's validity for
something like Java, it's validity for something like images would seem
non existent.
Possibly you might want to consider the various documentation licences.
They may be a better fit than the source code licences like the ASF
licence.
[OT: It does raise interesting questions over the licencing of Apache
documentation and images]
> license, which wouldn't force me to open-source my work, and thus
> destroy my livelihood. Once incubated, I'm not sure if it would best
> belong under Commons or Jakarta. Wherever it would land, it would
Definitely not Jakarta. It's nothing to do with Java. Equally, it's
pushing it as to whether it's to do with Commons as it's not something
that is coming from the Apache commiting community [ie) another Apache
project].
Whether artwork is something that fits in the Apache realm, I'll leave
for others to argue over. I see no blatant reason why it could not.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
