On May 3, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Graham Bird wrote:
Ted
At 05:00 PM 5/2/2006, Ted Leung wrote:
The source code for Chandler is currently licensed under the GPL.
This was done because at some point in the past, we thought that a
dual license strategy similar to that used by MySQL might be a viable
model for the sustainability of the foundation. In today's world,
that doesn't seem to make much sense. There are also some good
reasons for Chandler to move away from GPL licensing
1. The GPL viral provisions would force parcel developers to license
their code under the GPL.
You don't believe that the lGPL provisions apply (or any other
license for that matter)? Does a parcel really NEED to fall under
the terms of the GPL?
I'm not sure I understand your first question. I would like parcel
writers to have their choice of licenses. If Chandler is GPL'ed,
then my understanding of the GPL is that
parcels would have to be GPL'ed. At Apache we had our attorneys
look at this issue and their advice was that a GPL or even LGPL
platform could infect software built on top it. The context was
Java, and this is one of the reasons that the ASF decided to do the
Geronimo J2EE server, even though there was already an LGPL J2EE
server (JBoss) in the market.
----
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
