From: Arne K. <ak...@op...> - 2010-01-06 22:16:34
|
I think part of the trouble is that GWC is a single module, so you basically have to build on top of the "bulk" as opposed to specific components. One possibility is to split the code into more modules and license the library routines separately from the webapp. That's kind of how GeoServer and GeoTools work, but of course GWC is a *lot* smaller, it's hard to separate out anything other than org.geowebcache.grid. I look forward to learning more about how you link code, I've only heard of two other cases and they said GPL was fine. If the linked code is available under BSD license then I'm sure we will be very amenable to finding a way to support this, alternatively look into something like the class path exception discussed in GSIP 37. -Arne Amos Hayes wrote: > Hi Arne. I don't want to stir anything up either. :) > > I don't have any issues with the LGPL. My interpretation is that it is a very different animal than the GPL. We have no problems building our own BSD licensed software that depends on, is distributed with, and in some cases incorporates specific components of LGPL software. If we make changes/improvements to the LGPL licensed code, we happily release those changes under LGPL as required. These are the "share the improvements [to your bulk]" you speak of. > > With the GPL, if I'm writing the bulk of my software, and I want to include/link (up for debate what these mean... and different for v2 and v3) any fraction of your code, I can't unless I release the bulk of *my* code under the GPL. I can certainly see the reason why OpenGeo might go that way to try to protect it's investment against closed license vendors. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow people with their own, even more open, bulk of code to tie your code into their larger project either. > > Anyway, I'm happy to talk about it more off list, I just thought I should point out that LGPL is not the same as GPL and that changing to GPL means also impacting BSD, Apache, and even other LGPL projects that hope to do more than just redistribute GWC. > > -- > Amos Hayes > Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre > Carleton University > > > On 2010-01-06, at 2:15 PM, Arne Kepp wrote: > > >> There are tons of good debates regarding BSD vs (L)GPL on the internet. I do not think it would be fruitful to repeat them here, people have presumably already read one or two and decided which one they believe in (or neither). I've yet to see a convincing study with a numerical comparison of the success rates of the projects. I like both, but for projects such as GWC I *personally* find GPL more approriate. >> >> The reason is that a single company has made a substantial investment (even disregarding funded work) into this code and taken a fair amount of risk. If the code was licensed under BSD, it would be trivial for the big GIS vendors (most of whom currently lack such a product) to snap it up, rebrand and push through their sales channels, which are much larger than OpenGeo's. >> >> They can still do that, it's open source after all, but the license at least ensures that people will be informed there is an open source version underneath and it will give the GWC community access to improvements built on top of the existing codebase. You can summarize the (L)GPL as "give back under my exact terms", but I find "share your improvements the way I shared the bulk with you" to be a more appropriate summary. >> >> We started with LGPL because GWC was meant to be a plugin for GeoServer. But it was easier to debug and develop as a separate application, GPL became the more natural license (this decision is about a year old by now, time flies). All the source code has had LGPLv3 headers since the start, so that's effectively the current license. >> >> To be completely honest, I had forgotten that I had changed the homepage to read GPL until it was brought up today, it hasn't been a high priority. >> >> Bottom lines, >> 1) I am very much interested in suggestions on how we can improve the collaboration tools? >> 2) If you really need to use GWC or GS under a different license, you can discuss dual-licensing with The Open Planning Project. I would also be interested in hearing about licensing problems off list. >> >> -Arne >> >> >> Amos Hayes wrote: >> >>> Hi Arne. >>> >>> I used to have a soft spot for the "force things to open up" creativity behind the GPL license. Unfortunately, it is actually quite restrictive to projects that attempt to be *more* open than GPL. Our code is all released under a BSD license and we have had to seek alternatives to using GPL code when it is to be closely integrated. Now that there is so much open source, so many tools to help communities form, and great enthusiasm for contributing, the GPL "give back under my exact terms" rule is actually causing more problems than it solves. "Truly open" licenses are becoming more common. In my opinion, if you want contributions back, it's more effective to provide good collaboration tools, review contributions quickly, and with any luck, outpace the development of anyone's closed fork. >>> >>> I'm actually surprised that GWC is going GPL. Is there an issue you are trying to address with the switch? >>> >>> -- >>> Amos Hayes >>> Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre >>> Carleton University >>> >>> On 2010-01-06, at 12:39 PM, Arne Kepp wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Where did you read that GeoServer 2.0 is LGPL? >>>> >>>> It's GPL (version 2.0, to be specific) and there has not been any discussion of LGPLing it, so you will face exactly the same "problems" with GWC as you currently do with GS. GWC's license is effectively LGPLv3 at this point, but will be relicensed to GPL sooner or later. >>>> >>>> I started soliciting feedback from the community, got no objections, but the got stuck because of the GeoServer integration and v3 vs v2 issues. Maybe we'll just drop back to GPLv2. Either way, I updated the webpage early to give developers like you a fair warning. >>>> >>>> If by "standard interfaces" you mean HTTP calls, such as WMS, then I believe you can distribute these as you like. Just present the GPLv2 license as part of the installation routine (the disclaimer is important) and point to where the user can get the source code. >>>> >>>> -Arne >>>> >>>> >>>> ajayr wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> I have been using the older version of Geowebcache (when the licensing was >>>>> LGPL) in a closed source product. I am interested in upgrading to the latest >>>>> version of geowebcache. But I noticed that the liceinsing has now become >>>>> GPL. >>>>> >>>>> My question is this: >>>>> >>>>> 1. does using geowebcache in the server mode prevent me from distributing >>>>> the product? ( I know geoserver has GPL licensing but I can distribute it as long as i do >>>>> not make any modifications to geoserver in terms of adding plugins, etc. >>>>> i.e. as long as i work behind the standard geoserver interfaces. ) >>>>> >>>>> 2. I think that geoserver 2.0 and above is now LGPL, so if i use geowebcache >>>>> with geoserver does that mess with geowebcache licensing when i distribute >>>>> the product? >>>>> >>>>> Appreciate any info in this regard >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Ajay >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Arne Kepp >>>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >>>> Expert service straight from the developers >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community >>>> Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support >>>> A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy >>>> Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ >>>> Geowebcache-users mailing list >>>> Geo...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geowebcache-users >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> -- >> Arne Kepp >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >> Expert service straight from the developers >> >> > > -- Arne Kepp OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers |