Re: [Cppcms-users] Proposal to release CppCMS 2.0 and migrate to C++11

[Artyom B. <art...@gm...>]

>
> Artyom, is it time to reconsider more permissive license?
> [...]
> The license of CppCMS that I use is LGPL and I had to do a lot of
> twists to use it without static linkage. Even that, current state of
> my setup is not satisfying.

First of all is it internal release or you deliver to the SW to clients?

If it is internal you have no obligations whatsoever to link dynamically
as you can always replace the library by rebuilding the SW. For external
release it is different.

>  - current license sounds like you want to be the only developer of
> CppCMS, so that you can earn some living of it through the commercial
> license.

To be honest no. I don't want to be the only developer also I had some
significant incomes from CppCMS - but not related to licensing at all.

This way or other CppCMS can't support me and my family.

However, I want to keep Copyrights belong to me because this way
I can actually __change the license__ - if for example one day I will want
to change the license to something more permissive. Without being
sole owner of all copyrights on CppCMS code I can't do it.

That is why every contribution requires copyright transfer on submitted code.

> This is just fine, every one should get paid for such a
> brilliant work. That may be the unspoken reason until now for missing
> contributions from other developers.
>

IMHO most of users somewhat afraid of going to quite complex code
and I'm not sure CppCMS has enough buzz around it to convert the
quantity of users to quality of contributions.

> I am a bit afraid that you may consider my request for rude or that
> you should not get paid for CppCMS. To the contrary, if you get paid,
> CppCMS will get better because of your increased efforts to develop
> it.

No, it isn't rude at all, it is more than legitimate request. In fact once
CppDB was LGPLv3 licensed now due to request I changed it to Boost/MIT.

However....

I don't think that frameworks of such a scale should be released under
permissive license like MIT, Boost or Apache...

So I consider some kind of exception of typical use case of LGPL
library - i.e. allow static linking. (like wxWindows exception)

But I still hadn't decided yet,

So for now I'll keep LGPLv3...

Regards,
   Artyom