Re: [Opencxx-users] What's fair (Was: License issues)

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> Hi Grzegorz,
> 
> 
>>From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
>>Sent: September 21, 2004 10:43
> 
> 
>>You used OpenC++ code for the benefit of your project, 
>>however now you 
>>are effectively blocking OpenC++ from using its own 
>>derivatives present 
>>in your project's code.
>>
>>You certainly realize that OpenC++ cannot change its license 
>>overnight, 
>>especially that it involves negotations with Xerox Co. If you were 
>>really thinking about sharing code between OpenC++ and Synopsis both 
>>ways, and at the same time were indeed concerned about 
>>OpenC++ license, 
>>you could have raised the issue several months ago, when you were 
>>talking to Chiba about distributing his changes under LGPL. For some 
>>reason you decided to keep this issue off the mailing list.
> 
> 
> Wait a minute. The 'OpenC++ code' we are talking about here has
> two copyright holders, Chiba and Xerox. Chiba agreed to relicense
> under LGPL, and the Xerox code is being phased out right now.

Have I said otherwise?

> Please don't construct some conspiracy around this. 

What conspiracy?

> It is very
> unfortunate that you believe the LGPL conditions make the code
> unusable for you, but that's something you have to live with.
 >
> It's you who doesn't want to give the freedoms that are tied into
> LGPL to others.

Whether OpenC++ will be distributed under LGPL depends on the outcome of 
the discussion which will take place in this forum.

For the records: I have never voted for or against LGPL; this is only 
your asumption that "LGPL conditions make the code unusable for" me. 
Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a 
consensus about it.

You seem to ignore the fact that changing OpenC++ license CANNOT HAPPEN 
OVERNIGHT and requires negotiations with Xerox Co. You also ignore the 
fact that last week I wrote that I am about to start the process of 
standardizing OpenC++ license in the end of this week.

> This finger pointing isn't very constructive, so I'd suggest we either 
> stop this aspect of the discussion, or at least take it offline. 
> I asked last week whether anybody had issues with the LGPL, and you 
> were the only one who voiced his disagreement.

There were voices againt GNU licenses in the past. Please also note that 
nobody voiced agreement.

Let me bring this issue on the list in a separate thread.

>>I understand that you have the legal right not to relicense 
>>your changes 
>>under OpenC++ license and thus block their incorporation back into 
>>OpenC++. However in my opinion this is unfair, counterproductive and 
>>certainly not in the spirit of open source community. And, 
>>above all, it 
>>can be hardly called a "cooperation" between the projects.
> 
> 
> It is highly demagogical and polemic to accuse LGPL for being 
> counter-productive and 'not in the spirit of open source'. 

Please read my post again. I am not accusing LGPL of anything. I just 
claim that your decision of not allowing changes to be merged back into 
OpenC++ under its current license is unfair, counterproductive and 
certainly not in the spirit of open source community.

Also step back and look at this situation: OpenC++ has a specific 
non-standard license which is in place for many years (you contributed 
under it yourself). However now you confront the OpenC++ community with 
ultimatum "you have to switch to LGPL or you wouldn't get patches from 
Synopsis". Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly 
supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has not taken place.

Would you agree to contribute your patches under OpenC++ license if 
OpenC++ has a standard OSI-approved or Boost license?

Best regards
Grzegorz