I wasn't sure whether to post this to the NAnt dev list or the NAntContrib
dev list, so forgive the dupe posting.
I am working on a library of tasks
for NAnt and am looking to set up the licensing correctly so I can distribute
it. I would prefer to release under the LGPL but I am under the
Hello all,
after browsing the developer list's archive for some discussions about
licensing, I felt like contributing one or two thoughts. I hope nobody
minds my entering the discussion, although I just started using nant,
with no code contributions so far.
1) I feel that one major point was not
IANAL
If and when, Nant chooses to migrate to a different license,
it will have to handle the copyrights of the contributers.
Scott Hernandez and I briefly discussed this on the Draco.Net
list. Scott wanted references, and I haven't responded because
I had to take some time to look them up.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Tom Jordan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL
If and when, Nant chooses to migrate to a different license,
it will have to handle the copyrights of the contributers.
IANAL either, but what you say is 100% the same that I've seen happen
in similar cases for other projects.
At
Yes, this has always concerned me and is something I think we need to remedy
on any future contributions. We need some kind of declaimer/license
agreement that people submitting patches agree to. Then we can be free to
make these kinds of changes without contacting a hundred people, or keeping
Isn't it common to assign copyright to on eor two people or some
registered body ? So for apache projects its the apache foundation, for
mono its Ximian etc
I think at this stage we would have difficulty tracking down all
contributers.
Ian
Scott Hernandez wrote:
Yes, this has always concerned
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Yes, there is nothing inside a BSDish license
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Scott Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 can only speak for myself, I wouldn't.
Ant has become as successful as it is for several
: Brant Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 3:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would
want NAnt to be available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless there's a slight chance that Apache is going to accept .NET
projects :-)
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm sure that the ASF would not
reject a project just because it used .NET.
The ASF hosts projects written in C, Perl,
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003, Matthew Mastracci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure that I agree with changing the license to a BSD or
Apache-style license.
As you are responding to a mail of mine, please note that I've just
explained some things about different licenses and what would be
involved
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Mitch Denny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have one question about the wording though. The section
Redistribution and USE (my emphasis) in source and binary
forms. Does this mean that if I build a set of tasks and compile
them into a separate assembly, but don't ship the NAnt
Hi all,
I do not bother about licences much but:
NAnt works well as a GPL'd project. It's effectively a stand-alone
project. Any company wanting to incorporate it could simply bundle
the executable.
You cannot write a NAnt task that uses parts of NAnt's API and
distribute that task
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be
available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for
it. Do we want to allow this?
[2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of
All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO.
- Original Message -
From: Brant Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt
- 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
10, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to
be
available to. Here are two scenarios.
[1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money
for
it. Do we want to allow this?
[2] A commerical
While replying to your note, I noticed the following on our license page:
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
Trying to chime in with a bit of experience from seeing project
migrate to the ASF.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Clayton Harbour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another note you mentioned license changes, I have always been
curious how that works/ is accomplished?
If
- Original Message -
From: Ian MacLean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
Thanks for the info Stefan,
I tend to agree with you re FSF and associated philosophy
Hi,
* Am 09.10.2003 (18:18) schrieb Gert Driesen:
There sould be no reason we can't get the licencing change in for the
next release - assuming we can deal with any copyright holder issues.
So now we need to make the official dicision as to which licence. I'm
leaning towards BSD - what are
).
- Mitch Denny
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.monash.net
- +61 (414) 610141
-
-Original Message-
From: Gert Driesen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:18 AM
To: Ian MacLean; Stefan Bodewig
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
22 matches
Mail list logo
