Menu
▾
▴
mockobjects-java-dev
|
From: Jeff M. <je...@cu...> - 2002-01-29 11:00:54
|
Can I ask why we're using the ASL. As a license it's fine but surely it can only be applied to apache projects as it gives the copyright to the ASF who as far as I know have know responsibility for the project. It would seem sensible to change the license so that copyright is held by someone within the project, as the current license seems wrong. If I've missed the point please let me know ;o) -- Jeff Martin Memetic Engineer http://www.custommonkey.org/ |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2002-01-29 11:07:51
|
That's historical. At one point we were getting close to the Cactus project, so we aligned the licences. That's gone away again, so we could change the licence if people agree. Which would you prefer? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@cu...> To: "MockObjects" <moc...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License > Can I ask why we're using the ASL. As a license it's fine but surely it > can only be applied to apache projects as it gives the copyright to the > ASF who as far as I know have know responsibility for the project. > > It would seem sensible to change the license so that copyright is held > by someone within the project, as the current license seems wrong. > > If I've missed the point please let me know ;o) |
|
From: Jerome F. <jer...@st...> - 2002-01-29 13:38:26
|
What about L-GPL ? Please i don't want to start a religious war about licencing. :) Jerome. -----Original Message----- From: moc...@li... [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of Steve Freeman Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:06 AM To: MockObjects Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License That's historical. At one point we were getting close to the Cactus project, so we aligned the licences. That's gone away again, so we could change the licence if people agree. Which would you prefer? Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@cu...> To: "MockObjects" <moc...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:59 AM Subject: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License > Can I ask why we're using the ASL. As a license it's fine but surely it > can only be applied to apache projects as it gives the copyright to the > ASF who as far as I know have know responsibility for the project. > > It would seem sensible to change the license so that copyright is held > by someone within the project, as the current license seems wrong. > > If I've missed the point please let me know ;o) _______________________________________________ Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list Moc...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2002-01-29 14:02:53
|
If I understand correctly, the problem with GPL is that some companies can't use it because it "infects" any code that depends on it (indeed, that's the whole point). Which licence from the available choices is the most open? Steve From: "Jerome Fillon" <jer...@st...> > What about L-GPL ? Please i don't want to start a religious war about > licencing. :) > > Jerome. > > From: moc...@li... > [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of > Steve Freeman > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:06 AM > That's historical. At one point we were getting close to the Cactus project, > so we aligned the licences. That's gone away again, so we could change the > licence if people agree. Which would you prefer? > > Steve > > From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@cu...> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:59 AM > > > Can I ask why we're using the ASL. As a license it's fine but surely it > > can only be applied to apache projects as it gives the copyright to the > > ASF who as far as I know have know responsibility for the project. > > > > It would seem sensible to change the license so that copyright is held > > by someone within the project, as the current license seems wrong. > > > > If I've missed the point please let me know ;o) |
|
From: Jerome F. <jer...@st...> - 2002-01-29 15:08:56
|
Yes for GPL but L-GPL is a little different. You don't infect or force companies to release programs binded with the library to be GPL. So everybody can use it even in a closed source application. Moreover L-GPL assure that the library itself will be and will stay free (in the GNU's meaning). So that's not as bad as the GPL. Actually the 'L' in L-GPL stands for 'Lesser'. -----Original Message----- From: moc...@li... [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of Steve Freeman Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:02 AM To: MockObjects Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License If I understand correctly, the problem with GPL is that some companies can't use it because it "infects" any code that depends on it (indeed, that's the whole point). Which licence from the available choices is the most open? Steve From: "Jerome Fillon" <jer...@st...> > What about L-GPL ? Please i don't want to start a religious war about > licencing. :) > > Jerome. > > From: moc...@li... > [mailto:moc...@li...]On Behalf Of > Steve Freeman > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 6:06 AM > That's historical. At one point we were getting close to the Cactus project, > so we aligned the licences. That's gone away again, so we could change the > licence if people agree. Which would you prefer? > > Steve > > From: "Jeff Martin" <je...@cu...> > Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:59 AM > > > Can I ask why we're using the ASL. As a license it's fine but surely it > > can only be applied to apache projects as it gives the copyright to the > > ASF who as far as I know have know responsibility for the project. > > > > It would seem sensible to change the license so that copyright is held > > by someone within the project, as the current license seems wrong. > > > > If I've missed the point please let me know ;o) _______________________________________________ Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list Moc...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev |
|
From: Olaf K. <ok...@ab...> - 2002-01-29 15:24:32
|
Hi all, I'll second LGPL. This means the library code itself is effectively GPLed, but may be used (linked) in closed source development and development of software licensed with any other license. see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL for the license text as well as more information. > So that's not as bad as the GPL. You'll also find an article by R. Stallman at that url in which he basically states that the LGPL is evil in most cases. I don't second that opinion, though ;-) Best, Olaf -- abstrakt gmbh Behringstrasse 16b 22765 Hamburg Tel: +49-40-39804630 Fax: +49-40-39804639 http://www.abstrakt.de/ Wir sind umgezogen. Bitte beachten Sie die neue Adresse + Telefonnr. |
|
From: Steve F. <st...@m3...> - 2002-01-29 16:14:18
|
I'm happy to be corrected. Any dissenting opinions? Otherwise, we'll change the licence. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olaf Kock" <ok...@ab...> To: "MockObjects" <moc...@li...> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License > Hi all, > > I'll second LGPL. This means the library code itself is effectively > GPLed, but may be used (linked) in closed source development and > development of software licensed with any other license. > > see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL for the license text > as well as more information. > > > So that's not as bad as the GPL. > > You'll also find an article by R. Stallman at that url in which he > basically states that the LGPL is evil in most cases. I don't second > that opinion, though ;-) > > Best, > > Olaf > > -- > > abstrakt gmbh > Behringstrasse 16b > 22765 Hamburg > Tel: +49-40-39804630 > Fax: +49-40-39804639 > http://www.abstrakt.de/ > > Wir sind umgezogen. Bitte beachten Sie > die neue Adresse + Telefonnr. > > _______________________________________________ > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list > Moc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev > |
|
From: Jeff M. <je...@mk...> - 2002-02-02 13:32:51
|
My opinion is that sticking with a BSD style license is best as it leads to the least confusion, so it's less likely to scare people off (Most suit friendly). The only problem with the current license is who actually holds the copyright. Having the ASF named in the mockobjects license is not really good for either party as it leads to confusion and makes the whole licensing thing a bit of a joke. All those in favor of current license with amended licenser raise you mouse hand now. ;o) On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 15:22, Olaf Kock wrote: > Hi all, > > I'll second LGPL. This means the library code itself is effectively > GPLed, but may be used (linked) in closed source development and > development of software licensed with any other license. > > see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL for the license text > as well as more information. > > > So that's not as bad as the GPL. > > You'll also find an article by R. Stallman at that url in which he > basically states that the LGPL is evil in most cases. I don't second > that opinion, though ;-) > > Best, > > Olaf > > -- > > abstrakt gmbh > Behringstrasse 16b > 22765 Hamburg > Tel: +49-40-39804630 > Fax: +49-40-39804639 > http://www.abstrakt.de/ > > Wir sind umgezogen. Bitte beachten Sie > die neue Adresse + Telefonnr. > > _______________________________________________ > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list > Moc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev -- |
|
From: Vincent M. <vm...@oc...> - 2002-02-02 15:30:02
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: moc...@li... > [mailto:moc...@li...] On Behalf Of > Jeff Martin > Sent: 02 February 2002 13:32 > To: MockObjects > Subject: Re: [MO-java-dev] MockObjects License > > My opinion is that sticking with a BSD style license is best as it leads > to the least confusion, so it's less likely to scare people off (Most > suit friendly). > > The only problem with the current license is who actually holds the > copyright. Having the ASF named in the mockobjects license is not really > good for either party as it leads to confusion and makes the whole > licensing thing a bit of a joke. > > All those in favor of current license with amended licenser raise you > mouse hand now. ;o) +1 > > > On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 15:22, Olaf Kock wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'll second LGPL. This means the library code itself is effectively > > GPLed, but may be used (linked) in closed source development and > > development of software licensed with any other license. > > > > see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#LGPL for the license text > > as well as more information. > > > > > So that's not as bad as the GPL. > > > > You'll also find an article by R. Stallman at that url in which he > > basically states that the LGPL is evil in most cases. I don't second > > that opinion, though ;-) > > > > Best, > > > > Olaf > > > > -- > > > > abstrakt gmbh > > Behringstrasse 16b > > 22765 Hamburg > > Tel: +49-40-39804630 > > Fax: +49-40-39804639 > > http://www.abstrakt.de/ > > > > Wir sind umgezogen. Bitte beachten Sie > > die neue Adresse + Telefonnr. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list > > Moc...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > Mockobjects-java-dev mailing list > Moc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mockobjects-java-dev |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X