On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Christoph Sturm wrote:
> But you could still point me to a java webapp project except tapestry > that uses *gpl and has a big community around it :) I don't think that this is necessarily a license problem. Usually all Java webapp projects with the notable exception of Tapestry are simply crap. I must admit that I don't know that many, though. > Ok, then you maybe dont know that jboss was gpl before, and they changed > to lgpl because theoretically no java application can be gpl. See the > jboss archives for the threads that led to this. I think that this problem exists for non-Java applications as well, but technically I don't share the opinion that no java application server can be GPL because all Java applications deployed in a GPL'ed container would automatically become GPL'ed as well. If an application is designed to only work i.e. with a specific servlet container which is GPL'ed this is true, however. In all other cases it depends on your shipment. But we don't have to reiterate that discussion here. > Actually all webapp frameworks that I know of except tapestry have a bsd > style license, and thats the only reason why I asked if a switch to > bsd-type is possible. > > > IMHO bsd licenses give the developer and the community more back, just > because more people use it, and fix bugs and add extensions. You dont > have to force people to give something back :) I don't think so. Theoretically you'd not get so much feedback, cause people don't have to do so. We have several BSD style frameworks and LGPL style frameworks - I don't see any notable difference in feedback, though our BSD style frameworks have a much broader user base (due to their nature, they are more general in use). > Yeah, but sometimes I dont understand certain parts of a framework, but > still have to get a resolution for a problem. And then I'm happy that I > can come up with a quick fix without having to ship my sourcecode. Um ... ok. > This statement convinces me that you have no sense of humor :) Hehe ... right! ;-) But honestly: it's pretty important IMO to make projects like Tapestry "visible" rather than hide them somewhere. At least, it's something that the Tapestry project "deserves" in a sense. LGPL ensures that this happens. > I still think that hiding the opensource roots of a commercial project > is a valid point, just because some people dont like stuff that is based > on opensource. Hm, I'm not an evangelist like Stallman, but hiding the open source roots of a commercial project because your clients don't like the idea of open source (or freeware) is no solution at all. If your clients find out about it, they might be unhappy. In my opinion it's best to convince your clients that the open source solution they are about to get is technically better or just better suited than everything they could possibly buy. We experience the same every day and have to go through all the hassle - but we wouldn't cheat on our clients, because we'd lose them as soon as they'd find out. It's necessary to change your clients' attitude towards open source, because in the end you'll also profit from that, because the more companys willing to use open source software without prejudice there are, the more possible clients you'll have. Easy. Cheers, Marcus -- Marcus Mueller . . . crack-admin/coder ;-) Mulle kybernetiK . http://www.mulle-kybernetik.com Current projects: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
