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

[Stanimir M. <sta...@zo...>]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Artyom Beilis <art...@gm...> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
Almost all are internal, but I don't know what "SW" abbreviates to.
Maybe "Service Website"?
There is one app I made for clients (since I do outsourcing) that I
had to make it use dynamic linkage, because I think that the LGPL
requires it.
The app and source code is all theirs and not mine. It is a document
archival app. They sell the service and storage of the documents to
their clients.
Is that SW that you are talking about?

I might have even violated your license in some way? :(
I had to ask that question before I start using CppCMS for this assignment.

Maybe my confusion with all those licenses comes from the missing
understanding of the limitations they pursue and why!
>From the text of LGPL is clear that dynamic linkage is allowed and now
you say that there is a way to use it even with a static one.

> 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.
I wish it could!
>
> 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.
>
That makes more sense now.

>> 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.
>
In my own experience, contributions are a bit scary because you are
supposed to contribute fully functional feature.
An example applicable to CppCMS is that I made a bazel build for it's
trunk (see https://bazel.build), but I didn't consider contributing it
yet, because it is not fully and generally working solution.

This reminds me of why github could be preferred and pushed by so many
people. It is easier to contribute even with half baked solutions that
get better over longer period of time.

>> 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)
>
I just read more for wxWindows exception. It seams the exception is
only when you deliver/destribute the binary form of the product.
Is this applicable for web framework library at all?

After all wxWindows is cross plafrom GUI library that is supposed to
be distributed as part of a desktop application, while the web
apps/sites are hosted services.

> But I still hadn't decided yet,
>
> So for now I'll keep LGPLv3...
>
> Regards,
>    Artyom
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers
> Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise?
> Reconnect with the command line and become more productive.
> Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy!
> http://sdm.link/telerik
> _______________________________________________
> Cppcms-users mailing list
> Cpp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users

Thank you so much for your answers and of course for CppCMS in general!