Re: [JSch-users] a license issue [Re: jsch file transfer, etc]

[<ym...@jc...>]

Hi,

I'm sorry for my delay.

   +-From: "Lee David Painter" <3s...@bt...>
   | Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:22:10 -0000
   |
   |The simple difference between the LGPL and Apache is that with
   |Apache, the license DOES NOT require the developers of any
   |derivative project to open source it. We released our original
   |library on a BSD license before we actually took a look at our
   |legal position, when we did however we decided it was better to
   |protect our interests as well as other open source developers by
   |changing to an LGPL license.

From the interests point of view, the change of license from LGPL to
BSD style license will not affect our interests in our case.
You may not be interested in our motivation for starting our ssh2 
implementation, but let me write here.  
Our motivation is very simple.  We just needed to add secure X session 
functionality to our pure Java X server, which is our current flag ship.
So, if we can continue to provide such a functionality to our customers,
it is enough.  We don't care so seriously that somebody will use our code
under their own license

   |As open source developers, we surely have to protect our software
   |from blatant commercialisation; as Richard Stallman always argues,
   |commercial software has the benefit of money, do we also want to
   |give them the benefits of open source as well?
   |
   |By releasing code under an Apache style license, you would be
   |giving commercial organizations the ability to create whole new
   |SSH products without ever having to thank us as open source
   |developers for creating the building blocks. As there are only 2
   |'real' open source SSH java libraries, SSHTools and Jsch, it is up
   |to us to protect this position.

Of course, it is nice to hear "Thank you" from somebody, 
but the Free Software never force users to do so and 
I'm not so interested in getting credits from somebody.
However, I will agree with you on other points. I like the spirits of
the Free Software and respect rms and cheer his awesome efforts. 
Simultaneously, IMHO, we should also contribute to the Open Source community
They are our friends and not enemies.  If friends ask for something,
I want to do for them, even if such an activity will also help others.

   |I think it would help if projects like ours clearly stated what
   |they see as an 'acceptable use policy' for their LGPL'd code so
   |that projects like Apache are not governed by the general
   |consensus of the non LGPL/GPL camp.  After all who are the
   |developers that are going to complain about them breaking a
   |license? that would be us.

According to the discussion with some developers from some open source
projects, the main problem for them is the "re-licensing".  Even if LGPL/GPL 
are compatible for their open source license, their users can choose their
own licnese and those license may be incomatible with the Free Software license.

   |Food for thought, and again apologies for the intrusion but open
   |source developers really should be helping each other and changing
   |your license would only benefit Apache and commercial developers,
   |and you would lose a lot more control over where your source code
   |ends up.

I greatly appreciate your comments. I will not care for the lost of control, 
but it is sad for me that the change of license from LGPL to others will 
disappoint somebody in the Free Software community. 
It is painful decision for me and I have not made my decision yet,
but your comments are very impressive for me and gave me the good opportunity 
to think of this issue deeply.  


Thanks,
--
ymnk