Thanx Ted and Peter,
MIT will do, I will suggest it to the customer, and it is really VERY
brief and understandable :-)
Emmanouil:
IMO the libraries have very little value without the source code being
available under an OS license
Normally I would agree, but in this case the MIT license will give me
the opprotunity to create a product on top which would be then
opensource. The jar in question is a interval-stat-value framework,
the application above would be an interval-based
struts/servlet/whatever stats. We actually have one in usage right
now, and the results are magnificent. That's why I want to make an OS
project out of it, to use it in my other projects and to give the
community something back.
regards
Leon
On 3/8/06, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it were me, I'd probably suggest putting the binaries under the MIT
license.
* http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
It talks about software but doesn't distinguish between source and
object form.
The MIT license also has the virtue of being brief and easy to understand :)
Then, later, when there has been time to review and sanitize the
source code, you would be able to include the source in the
distribution under the same license.
-Ted.
On 3/8/06, Leon Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry for OT, but I am pretty stupid with legal stuff, and after
carefully reading gnu und apache license packages I am as unknowing as
I was before. Here my problem:
I am trying to convince one of my customers to make some of the libs I
wrote for him public available. For process reasons the source code of
the libs will not be available, only the jars would be available and
redistributeable. I thought publishing the jar under the LGPL would
make it, but after reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html I'm
starting to doubt it.
Since we must have many experts in licensing here, I think there is no
better place to ask :-)
The jars would be free for copy, modification, usage, all the gpl
stuff, but not available in sourcecode. This is because the company,
which owns the code, has to make additional reporting to the
headquarters in case they would publish the source code and ensure,
that there are no comments in the source code, that contain
non-disclosure information. Publishing the jars only would be lot of
easier for them, and the probability, that they would do it, is
higher. So under which license do they need to publish the jars?
Or is it something which can be achieved by a trick? Creating a dummy
application which contains the jars and put the application under
lgpl, therefore providing source code for the application, but no
source code for the libs?
any help is highly appreciated
regards
leon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
HTH, Ted.
** http://www.husted.com/ted/blog/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
