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]
