Re: [Babeldoc-devel] Proposal for all the babeldoc developers - CALL FOR VOTE

[Ken G. <kg...@sp...>]

+1

A quick scan tells me that only 25 files actually have a copyright 
statement on them.  I believe that the only claimants are Bruce and 
Dejan.  So I think it only requires their permission, but I am glad that 
you bring it to vote.

A license such as the Apache Public License would clear up some issues 
for us.  About changing the license headers...  Aren't we all text 
processors here, guys?!?  That sounds like a job for Perl (although I 
don't really know Perl!)

I am more hesitant towards the idea of becoming a Jakarta project; I 
just don't see the need, and I think it needs more cleaning up first.


Ken

Bruce McDonald wrote:
> I am leaning towards the Apache Public License - what do you think?  We need a 
> vote one this.  Every who dis/agrees that a license change is in order, 
> please respond yes or no.  If yes, please provide your opinion on the new 
> license (if you have an opinion).  Voting closes this friday.
> 
> On Monday 09 June 2003 08:38 pm, Bill Harrelson wrote:
> 
>>How about just including a blanket statement in one README file with a date
>>that overrides all headers in any file dated prior to the included date? 
>>Then just update the headers one-by-one as they are touched?
>>
>>Language like "This license supersedes and takes precedence over all tems
>>of any license statements in the following files:....  "  ought to do it.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>On 9 Jun 2003 at 18:24, Bruce McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>Bill, All:
>>>
>>>I would very much like to move babeldoc to a less restrictive license.
>>> The big issue for me is the effort required to go through every
>>>source file and changing the header comment.  Any volunteers?
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>Bruce.
>>>
>>>On Monday 09 June 2003 02:13 pm, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bruce,
>>>>
>>>>I have been playing with BabelDoc for while now and find it very
>>>>useful, However, I have a commercial product that I want to combine
>>>>with it.  The chances of me being able to secure investment with
>>>>code combined under the GPL are vanishingly small.
>>>>
>>>>So, I would heartily endorse moving to the Apache Public License (as
>>>>quickly as possible, as I would like to release a new version of my
>>>>product within a month).  I currently have other Apache products in
>>>>my product and it would make my life a lot easier.  Otherwise I have
>>>>to figure out some "loose- coupling" of my product with BabelDoc
>>>>that makes the separation clear.  This would significantly restrict
>>>>the amount to which I could use it.
>>>>
>>>>...one person's opinion, but I hope you will let me know what you
>>>>decide.
>>>>
>>>>regards and thanks for the great software,
>>>>
>>>>Bill
>>>>
>>>>On 23 May 2003 at 9:13, Bruce McDonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have been thinking that trying to make babeldoc a Jakarta Apache
>>>>>project might be an excellent idea.  So instead of being one of
>>>>>10000 projects on sourceforge we can be one of 50 on Jakarta.
>>>>>High visibility.  And since we use mainly Jakarta libraries, it
>>>>>would be a good fit.
>>>>>
>>>>>The issue is that we will have to re-license Babeldoc.  Now, in
>>>>>order to do so, we need to all agree on this.  The license is the
>>>>>Apache Public License.  This is more "liberal" than GPL in that
>>>>>code *can* be made commercial and does not limit the linking with
>>>>>proprietary code as much as GPL.  Your opinions and comments here
>>>>>are welcome.  Anyway the idea is to move the code in this
>>>>>direction.
>>>>>
>>>>>regards,
>>>>>Bruce McDonald.