----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Mastracci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ian MacLean wrote: > > Matt, > > what are your specific objections to a BSD style licence ? Is it the > > greater permissiveness or just that its not GPL ? > > My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather > add core enhancements (ie: modifications/enhancements/bug fixes to the > core code) and keep those proprietary. I personally don't mind people > keeping peripheral enhancements to themselves (for example, someone > wishing to build a proprietary link between their app and NAnt, an NAnt > gui, etc.), but it's good to get things like bug fixes and the like back > from people using the code.
It is great to get bug reports (and esp. patches) back from users. If someone is going to do this I don't think it matters what license the software is under. I don't feel pressed to send code patches to groups based on the license. Sure, I may be bound by the license to do it, but no one is going to force me. Would changing the license from GPL keep you from contributing code, ideas and being an active member of the development team? > > > Well if you consider that most users looking at using NAnt come from > > microsoft shops and have likely been exposed to/scared by the microsoft > > anti-GPL FUD. Compared to gcc users who are mostly all on Unix/linux or > > MaxOSX and are rather less fazed by that kind of thing. We have had a > > number of comments from consultants ( some from MS consulting ) and book > > authors that they would like to recomend NAnt to clients/corporations > > but had concerns about the license. Whether those concerns are valid is > > another issue however anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this is a > > real concern for some people. I'd like to hear more from list members > > about corporate policy's regarding opensource usage and licenses. > > One other possibility I'd like to throw out these is keeping the core > codebase under the GPL (or changing to the LGPL) and offering a > "business friendly" binary distribution under a different license. This > license could exclude any GPL viral terms that might be frightening off > those with license concerns. If business users are concerned with using > GPL'd executables this could possibly satisfy them. Those people > looking to get the source could still grab the (L)GPL'd code from > Sourceforge. > > This suggestion may not require a license change, but would likely > require buy-in from the development group for the binary-licensed > distribution. >From a marketing point of view it is really good to keep a single license. The more license we use the more confusing the questions become. Going to a BSD/Apache style license is something we can evangelize and something to point to as a change in the project. We can get more people involved with NAnt if we have a less restrictive license. As Ian has pointed out, there is a lot of bad press around the viral affects of the GPL. Even if we do have a clause to lessen those restrictions, people will still react to the "GPL" part of the license and may not pay attention to the additional licensing clauses. I too lean more towards the LGPL license in some cases. In this case I look at what Ant has done under the Apache license. I don't see any problems they have run into (in choosing that license). If the Ant team had the option, now that they have been out there so long, I wonder if they would choose a sep. license for any reason. I wonder if there are times that they wish they could have stopped someone from doing something with another license. (I know that this is not an option as it is an apache project :) ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
