http://nant.sourceforge.net/license.html
---
"NAnt ships with a prebuilt version of NDoc. The NAnt license does not apply to these components located in the bin folder of the distribution. NDoc is licensed under the GNU General Public License."
---
(also see http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/ndoc/ndoc/COPYING.txt?rev=1.2&view=auto)
We would have to remove NDoc support if we moved to a different license. Unfortunately, this would also include moving to the LGPL.
NUnit appears to be safe, though they have a clear anti-commercial (ie: "you can't sell this product for profit") statement in the license. It isn't very clear on whether bundling the product with a commercial one is alright, though I assume that it's within the spirit. :)
---
"All of the NUnit source code is Copyright 2000-2002 by Philip Craig. All rights reserved.
"This software comes with no warranty whatsoever; Philip Craig does not accept any liability for any damage or loss resulting from the use of this software, no matter how caused. You can use this software free of charge, but you must not sell it beyond charging for reasonable distribution costs. This software includes classes and documentation from JUnit - see the licence for the JUnit licence."
---
Scott Hernandez wrote:
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.
Agreed - though if you were to distribute the program publically, it's likely that someone could call you on it.
Would changing the license from GPL keep you from contributing code, ideas and being an active member of the development team?
Nope - I mentioned before that I would accept whatever license was agreed to by the development group as a whole, even if I don't agree completely with it. :)
...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.
> something to point to as a change in the project.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
This is true.
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 :)
I'm not completely certain about this part. I guess I'm just not a fan of having to pander to the fear of others, but that might just be my personality. :) Perhaps instead of avoiding the issue by changing licenses, we could point people at a page explaining *why* the GPL won't make all of their proprietary IP automatically open-sourced.
Like I said before: whatever we agree on I'll support. Just want to make sure I get my voice out there. ;)
Matt.
------------------------------------------------------- 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
