Begin forwarded message:
From: Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> Date: July 10, 2009 7:02:44 AM PDT To: Craig L Russell <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: JSecurity and the Apache 2.0 license Mine:I agree with, support and approve converting any and all of my JSecurity contributions, including my copyrighted code, from the existing LGPL to the Apache 2.0 license.Thanks again Craig, Les ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeremy Haile <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:55 PM Subject: Re: JSecurity and the Apache 2.0 license To: Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>Cc: Allan Ditzel <[email protected]>, Tim Veil <[email protected] >, Peter Ledbrook <[email protected]>I agree with, support and approve converting any and all of my JSecurity contributions, including my copyrighted code, from the existing LGPL license to the Apache 2.0 license.On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: I liked that part of the LGPL too (discouraging - although not strictly preventing - forks), but I think adoption is better. So, that brings me to my next point. We can only switch from one license to the other if all current copyright holders agree to switch. The only people who hold copyright to this project and have committed code are on this email thread. So, could you all please send me a brief reply that states "I agree with, support and approve converting any and all of my JSecurity contributions, including my copyrighted code, from the existing LGPL license to the Apache 2.0 license". ? I can't make this change in the project until each person on this list sends me that reply. Thanks! Les On 3/11/08, Jeremy Haile <[email protected]> wrote: I don't object. I liked LGPL since it prevents forks, copying code, etc. - but who really cares. Let's just open it up. I think that's best for adoption rate. On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: Any objections moving from LGPL to Apache 2.0? I'm thinking this will allow a much greater possibility for adoption as JSecurity would instantly be available to all Apache projects as well as any other projects based on the Apache license. Technically so are LGPL products, but its a little bit of a gray area for Apache open source projects. I know when I did consulting for Sun, a project team had to go through a legal approval process to adopt an LGPL library when they were working on a new internal project. Not so with Apache 2.0 - that is always fair game without approval. I originally chose LGPL for its 'contribute back to the project' mentality. That is, LGPL states that if you make modifications to the source code, you must make those source code changes publicly available. This usually always means sending those changes back to the project. Apache 2.0 has no such stipulation - it just requires that the license and copyright remain in-tact and distributed with your product. The only source code contributions that we've realistically seen in the last 3 years have been those that have been made by users via Jira tasks (e.g. submitted patches, suggestions, etc), so I'm not so sure that the LGPL is providing us with any extra benefit. We'll still get those submissions under Apache 2.0. By going to Apache 2.0 however, we could see our adoption shoot through the roof. We may actually be a candidate to be an adopted Apache project one of these days too, which could be cool :) Any objections? - Les
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
