I think we might have to just change to Apache 2. The problem with creating our own license is that people wanting to use the framework might need to hire a lawyer first :)
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> wrote: > It really is an interesting question about how the GWT compiler affects the > license. At the end of the day, you could just add an explicit exemption to > the LGPL license to clarify the issue - you may want to get advice from a > lawyer (or maybe there are some FSF forums out there) on the precise > language to use. > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Joe Cole <profilercorporat...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> IANAL but I believe you are stuck with liberal licensing or creating >> your own special license. >> In practice license makes no difference; if the project is successful >> it will always have contributions back. >> >> Joe >> On Apr 8, 1:07 am, David Tinker <david.tin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hmm. Our intention is to allow the use of GWT Portlets in commercial >> > closed source projects without forcing those projects to become open >> > source. We do want people who modify the framework to contribute their >> > changes back to the community. That is why we chose LGPL instead of >> > GPL or Apache 2. >> > >> > Is there anyone on this thread who is a lawyer who can answer this >> > question? What do we need to do to fulfill our intent as described >> > above? >> > >> > Cheers >> > David >> > >> > On Apr 7, 12:48 pm, Joe Cole <profilercorporat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Your logic applies to normal java linking (see fsf's lgpl and java >> > > post) but with gwt, it seems it may be thought of as static linking: >> > >> > >> > > >http://pocketdope.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-you-shouldnt-use-lgpl-for-... >> > >> > > Personally, I would agree. >> > >> > > Thoughts? >> > >> > > On Apr 7, 3:04 pm, Vitali Lovich <vlov...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Joe Cole >> > > > <profilercorporat...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> > > > > Looks great. What are the implications for the use of the LGPL? >> > > > > From >> > > > > my understanding LGPL + gwt = distribute source? >> > >> > > > No - you only have to distribute the changes you make to the library >> > > > (can't >> > > > recall the fundamental differences between v2 & v3 for LGPL, but >> > > > this >> > > > remains the same because that's the fundamental reason LGPL exists >> > > > in >> > > > parallel with GPL). >> > >> > > > > Joe >> > >> > > > > On Apr 7, 1:37 am, "david.tin...@gmail.com" >> > > > > <david.tin...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > GWT Portlets is a free open source web framework for building >> > > > > > modular >> > > > > > GWT (Google Web Toolkit) applications. GWT provides the low >> > > > > > level >> > > > > > building blocks required to build web applications (Java to >> > > > > > Javascript >> > > > > > compiler, basic UI widgets, an RPC mechanism etc.) but typical >> > > > > > business applications can benefit from the additional >> > > > > > scaffolding >> > > > > > provided by GWT Portlets. In traditional web applications this >> > > > > > role >> > > > > > would be fulfilled by Struts and other web frameworks. >> > >> > > > > >http://www.gwtportlets.org/ >> > >> > > > > > Please have a look. All feedback will be appreciated. >> > >> > > > > > Note that the signup mails send by the site tend to get eaten by >> > > > > > spam >> > > > > > filters so check your spam folder if you don't receive the mail. >> > >> > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > David >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to Google-Web-Toolkit@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
