Re: [CLucene-dev] Re: license (clarification)

[<rg...@sd...>]

>>>>> "Max" == Max Khesin <ma...@to...> writes:
Max> 
Max> The problem is that some changes are not really an improvement of
Max> the open source package as its goals are defined. e.g if I stick
Max> clucene in some cool documentation software I am working on my
Max> prog will be subject to either the open-source req. of lgpl or to
Max> the inconvenience of using a linked binary.

It all comes down to what Title 17 refers to as a "derived work."  If
CLucene were just a separate executable called via VB script in your
product's documentation window, no problems.  If you integrate it too
far it is a derived work.  The FSF makes the claim that all dynamic
linking is deriving a new work from the library, but the LGPL
explicitly gives up the author's right to works _derived by linking_
(but not by other means).  And it is possible that at least some uses
of dynamic linking aren't derived works inspite of the FSF's position.
It isn't clear where the line is, not because of the license, but
because Title 17 purposely doesn't make it explicit.

>> However, if you wanted some of my code under the Apache license, I
>> would make you pay for it -- my reasoning being that I get
>> something for my code, either access to better versions of it, or
>> money.
Max> 
Max> I do not see how you can pull this off under apache. apache means
Max> it's open-source. and even if you do not post your code but sell
Max> it to me under apache i can just go ahead and post it
Max> myself.

Yes, that is what I was suggesting.  You can offer it under the GPL
and wait until someone asks about a different license, then charge
money.  If you give it to them under the Apache license you will
probably only sell it once, but sometimes a single large commercial
license fee is all you can get anyway.  Sometimes they try to sell a
traditional commercial license in which the licensee can't
re-distribute the source.

Max> what I have seen some people do is offer the code under
Max> either GPL OR a commercial license. This way people who do not
Max> want to be burdened by GPL can just go ahead and by the GPL-free
Max> license.

Exactly.  Doesn't MySQL do this ?
 
>> Swish-e is also debating going through a license change discussion,
>> you might go over to there forum and complain there too :)  They have
>> mentioned the BSD license, which would statisfy your requirements.

Max> Maybe I will :). Is it written in an 'appropriate' language?

C.  I think it is technically less advanced than MG or Lucene, because
it is older.  It does have a stemmer though.  I don't know the size of
the index relative to the body of work.

http://swish-e.org/ (Look at the link at the bottom of the page for
the License discussion)

I think I'm sticking with CLucene though, the LGPL is fine for me and
I think it is more advanced than Swish-e.

Max> I have both 1st and recently got 2d editions. My 'dayjob' is
Max> working for a company which developed the 1st (and still the best
Max> :) commercial implementation of JBIG2 image compression. Many
Max> principles of symbolic compression being covered in MG, we are
Max> longtime friends :)

Have you tried to use the software from the site ?  I have found the
"get scripts" which you need to index things to be buggy and brittle.

>> It's actually only 8 MB, that's not bad maybe I'll just use it.
Max> 
Max> The advantage is you can say things like 'twice as fast as the X
Max> search engine on the Reuters corpus', similar to the 'CCITT 8'
Max> image set when it comes to compression (static huffman codes in
Max> fax machines were optimized based on these 8 images).

I'm downloading it.

--Rob