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

[Stefan S. <sse...@ar...>]

> From: Grzegorz Jakacki [mailto:ja...@ac...]
> Sent: September 21, 2004 12:34

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

excellent.

> 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. 

Sorry if I got things backwards, but you said in another mail that you
would not have been able to use OpenC++ in your job would it be distributed
under LGPL.

> Moreover, I have not opposed changing OpenC++ license if there is a 
> consensus about it.

Good.

> 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.

I'm quite aware of it, and I'm glad you started this discussion (let's
hope it will stay on-topic and lead to a conclusion).
I know that such a process takes some time. I'v never asked you or anybody
else to change the license of the code that's currently in your repository,
and I'v especially not asked to make it 'happen overnight'.

> 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".

How's this an ultimatum ?

> Note also, that you were the only person so far explicitly 
> supporting LGPL and the honest discussion of licensing has 
> not taken place.

I'v always developed under LGPL. I'v also no problems incorporating
minor patches into OpenC++ under any free license OpenC++ uses itself.

However, if we are now talking about using Synopsis' own OpenC++ branch
as the foundation of 'OpenC++ Core', this is a qualitative change. I
find it quite natural that this discussion takes place now, and I
don't understand why you are accusing me of 'confronting' anybody
with an 'ultimatum'.

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

I'v already answered this question. Let's see how the discussion goes.
I'd very much appreciate if we found a solution that makes it possible 
for me to keep my code under LGPL.

Regards,
		Stefan

PS: as far as 'collaboration' is concerned, it is my sincere hope that
    even if diverging opinions concerning license issues will not let
    us share code, we are still able to share ideas.