[Cpptool-develop] License...

[Baptiste L. <gai...@fr...>]

    Forgot that point. We need to settle on a license for the project and
update all the headers accordingly.

    I agree with the features defined by Sven in the wiki (here is a link to
google cache:
http://www.google.fr/search?q=cache:yX4_QKduraQC:cpptool.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl%3FCppToolLicense+site:cpptool.sourceforge.net+license&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8).

Here is the feature list:
Necessary Features

  a.. compatible with tools and libraries we use:
    a.. cppunit
    b.. boost
  b.. allows us to use the program in conjunction with
    a.. VC++6
    b.. GNU emacs/ Xemacs
    c.. other IDE's
  c.. Warranty disclaimer: We can't be responsible if the user's source code
will be screwed up.

Nice Features

  a.. easy to read and understand
  b.. puts no restrictions on the use of the user's refactored code
("derivative works")
  c.. avoid that someone uses the code to build a commercial refactoring
browser (this clause would make it non-open software, so we'll have to think
about it)
  d.. no restriction on modification and redistribution of the source code,
provided that the license is preserved
  e.. credit to original authors
Finding a license on http://www.opensource.org/ is difficult. The LGPL is
not suitable because it not 'understandable', and is restrictive, even for
other open-source project.

    I found a potential candidate in the Eiffel Forum License, Version 1:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eiffel.php

    I think it meet all the above criteria (I'm not sure what make a license
no compatible with cppunit and boost), but allow for commercial usage. The
interesting aspect is that 'you MUST publicly release the modified version
of the package).

    Of course, there would be nothing to prevent them from selling the
product of this project as this, but I can hardly see that working if you
can get the same things for free (we just have to advertise the project
enough). Also, think about it the other way, we would get any change they
would make on the project.

    Also, there is no mention concerning derivative works. But I doubt we'll
found many licenses with that. May be we could add a simple statement
granting that permission. Suggestions?

    Once this project is mature, it will have a lot of reuse potential.
That's one reason why I'd rather not restrict it too much. For instance, the
parser and the code rewritter are just what a UML tool need for round-trip.

    What do you think ?

    Baptiste.