Hey Ricardo,
you asked about previous threads and i think there are two prominent ones:
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/Silent-license-change-tt2156060.html#none
http://itext-general.2136553.n4.nabble.com/What-action-is-requred-in-terms-of-License-tt2171650.html#none
If you read these two you will get a better understanding of the situation.
When you ask about a fork around here it is important to know the following:
iText is Bruno's baby and he will defend it rigorously (as he indicated by
defending his name).
The background is that he devoted himself to the project and spent most of
his time for the project. He gave support on the mailing list, wrote books
and did probably lots of other stuff related in supporting the project. And
that all for free. During that time his son got cancer and his government
"taxed him to death" so to speak. So at a certain point it has been decided
to switch the license.
-> I think everybody here feels for Bruno and the things which happened to
him and his family.
The 'dramatic' and personal answer you got on your reply was due the whole
background story. It is quite personal for Bruno and that's why the answers
to a fork quickly got so personal...
To give you more of an factual answer (fading out the personal drama
surrounding it):
1.) LGPL allows forking (under the same license). Keep the original creds
and add yours at the places you change something. In the beginning a fork it
would probably just mean to integrate some bug fixes into the last version.
2.) I am not a lawyer but with the thing with the name "lowagie" mabye be
right. So the first change would probably be to rename the package to
something else. On the other hand a quick Facebook search turned up 124
results so there are other people with that name too...
3.) Several people suggested to make a fork and i think it would be
supported by some of the community. (read the above threads). Even if Bruno
is offended - this is nothing against him or his great work. On the contrary
- this would increase the iText legacy even more. And then more people would
start using it (again) and if these people need support they would turn to
the commercial project. I think in the end everybody would benefit.
4.) No, a fork doesn't mean that the forker disrespects all the previous
work of the author. (If so, then one would start a completely new project).
If a fork should be prevented then chose the right license in the first
place.
5.) Nobody needs to write books about the fork. In fact there are many open
source project which doesn't have any (good) documentation at all. That's
open source. You got what you got - don't complain.
6.) "Who is going to take responsibility when something goes wrong?" That's
an interesting one. So Bruno you take responsibility/liability when using
iText 2.1.7 and something goes wrong? Wow this can get quite expensive ;-)
Now seriously nobody takes responsibility when something goes wrong. Thats
one of the differences between commercial and open source...
7.) Forking means work and only makes sense if you have at least some time
to maintain and support it. The minimal thing would be to collect the
changes/bugfixes/improvements made by others and integrate it into the
fork...
Regards,
ToM
2010/9/22 Ricardo Andre Redder Junior <>
> 1T3xt,
>
> A few comments about your reply:
>
>
>> You are talking about creating a fork.
>
>
>> The reason why iText moved from MPL/LGPL was because the company
>
> supporting the project, writing documentation, stimulating development
>
> could no longer afford the effort: there had to be revenue or the
>
> project would die.
>
>
> I completely understand the reasons, the context and the decisions you
> mentioned, I'm not even questioning that. We all have to find a way to pay
> our bills somehow ;)
>
> What you want to do, is to revive the dead.
>
> That's not very wise, and tricky legally (because you don't own the IP).
>
>
> Actually, what I am proposing, is not "revive the dead", instead, maybe it
> could be understood as "extending the life" or... "give a new life". Whether
> it is wise or not, I believe that it is up to the community (or the people
> who eventually decide to support this fork) to decide. However, I see that
> the real question is: whether it is wise or not, stupid or not, is it legal
> to continue the development of version v2.x, keeping the same license, even
> though you guys hold the IP? Based on the license, I don't see any problem
> with that, however I think your knowledge about the question is much wider
> than mine.
>
> Also: the price of a license is ridiculously low
>
> (as opposed to what some people/competitors have insinuated),
>
> so it's probably cheaper to buy a license than to put manpower
>
> into a fork (and all the misery that comes with it).
>
>
> I also understand that.... my company is currently evaluating this option
> (it is very likely we'll decide to buy the license...)
>
> Read:
>
> http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=5045
>
> It's not about the price, it's about the quality.
>
>
> Again, I agree with you, however my actual question is not about that.
>
> Who is going to write a book about the fork?
>
>
> The community, as many many other open source projects.
>
>
>> Who is going to take responsibility when something goes wrong?
>
>
> Probably.... no one.... as many many other open source projects. That's a
> risk that comes with the decision of using open source projects without
> payed support.
>
> No, no, no, this is about much more than just "would it be legal?"
>
> It would be stupid to create a fork, very, very stupid.
>
>
> Again, whether it is wise or not, I believe that it is not up to you. I'm
> not even saying I'll be doing this, I'm just trying to understand the
> context. The same way no one is questioning your decision to change the
> license, maybe you should not question other's decisions and reasons.
> Personally, I see a great value for the Java community, for many reasons,
> maybe others think the same way.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> 2010/9/22 1T3XT info < <[email protected]>>
>
> On 22/09/2010 19:46, Ricardo Andre Redder Junior wrote:
>>
>>> would it be OK for the community to continue the
>>> development of this version? I mean, would there be any legal issue
>>> continuing the development of this version, keeping the same license?
>>> For instance, submitting patches, adding features, etc., independently
>>> of version 5.
>>>
>>
>> You are talking about creating a fork.
>>
>> The reason why iText moved from MPL/LGPL was because the company
>> supporting the project, writing documentation, stimulating development
>> could no longer afford the effort: there had to be revenue or the
>> project would die.
>>
>> What you want to do, is to revive the dead.
>> That's not very wise, and tricky legally (because you don't own the IP).
>>
>> Also: the price of a license is ridiculously low
>> (as opposed to what some people/competitors have insinuated),
>> so it's probably cheaper to buy a license than to put manpower
>> into a fork (and all the misery that comes with it).
>>
>> Read:
>> http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=5045
>> It's not about the price, it's about the quality.
>> Who is going to write a book about the fork?
>> Who is going to take responsibility when something goes wrong?
>>
>> No, no, no, this is about much more than just "would it be legal?"
>> It would be stupid to create a fork, very, very stupid.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Ricardo A. Redder Jr.*
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
iText-questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions
Buy the iText book: http://www.itextpdf.com/book/
Check the site with examples before you ask questions:
http://www.1t3xt.info/examples/
You can also search the keywords list: http://1t3xt.info/tutorials/keywords/
