|
From: Max K. <ma...@to...> - 2003-07-06 01:37:46
|
Hi Rob, I am not a legalist, but after looking at lgpl it appears that any source modifications have to be published, too. That's the part that is not good for a proprietary project. Apache has no such restictions. On 4 Jul 2003, Rob Ristroph wrote: > > Hi, > > I just joined the mailing list, however I have read all the > messages in the archives. > > I had a few comments about licenses; but I want to preface > them by saying that the clucene developers can expect me to > work on clucene regardless of whether it is under the GPL, > LGPL, BSD or Apache licenses. > > First, I am unsure of why Max Khesin thinks the LGPL is > incompatible with a proprietary product in a way that the > Apache license isn't. Both licenses would require that you do > something when distributing a proprietary program that used > CLucene. The Apache requires that notices appear in the > proprietary software, the LGPL requires the receiver of the > proprietary software be able to get the source code to > CLucene. Personally, I think placing as zip file of CLucene > source on a CD or web page is less burdensome than cluttering > up my "About" sceen. Would the names "Apache" and "Apache > Software Foundation" be replaced with Ben van Klinkehn ? > > Some licenses allow the switching later on to others, such as > the latest BSD licensed software can be re-licensed as GPL (or > practically anything), and LGPL can be re-licensed as GPL, but > since Apache requires that notice it can't be switched to GPL > or LGPL later. > > You can offer the software under all three choices, at the > user's discretion. This is called "dual licensing" or > "multiple licensing." > > Someone made reference to the original writers of Lucene and > their intentions. When a piece of software code is re-written > completely, so that you change every single line, which is > what you do in switching languages, it is a new copyrightable > work not a derived work of the previous. (This is a grand > simplification, of course, and there are surely exceptions.) > An example is the Berkeley group that took AT&T Unix and > re-worked it until it was the separate work of BSD Unix. > Sometimes people are confused about this issue and think they > can't own code they have written while having someone else's > example in front of them, because they have heard discussions > of "clean room programming" and "virgin programmers" (virgin > programmers are so inexperienced they are known never to have > studied common examples). The issues of clean room and virgin > refer to trade secrets and whether reverse engineering was > used, not copyrights. We should be grateful to the Apache > group for saving us from all that by making their work Free > Software. > > In any case, the original Lucene and the Apache project is > focused on code meant to be run on a server, and most ordinary > users of the code don't have it on their computers; while > CLucene, being a simple library not in Java, is well suited to > being used in applications distributed everywhere. Users of > software via a server don't have much freedom to modify the > code anyway, and the people running the server are more likely > to be in a corporation, so the two environments naturally lead > to different outlooks on licenses. > > This message is long because I wanted to get all my license > opinions into one message. My future emails will be about > using and modifying CLucene :) > > --Rob > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100006ave/direct;at.asp_061203_01/01 > _______________________________________________ > CLucene-developers mailing list > CLu...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clucene-developers > |