Hi Everybody,
As you know OpenC++ has a specific, non-standard license (attached).
Non-standard license may pose problems for projects using OpenC++
(especially proprietary ones), since determining legal consequeneces of
license text may be non-trivial. However, well-known open-source
licenses have been carefully analyzed, thus such licenses are generally
considered safer than non-standard ones.
Also issues of compatibility between well-known licenses are understood,
which potentialy makes it simpler to determine if and how code can be
moved from one license to another. (Recently this occured to be an issue
with code moved between OpenC++ and Synopsis.)
Having said that, OpenC++ could benefit from changing its license to a
well-known one. This is a serious move, thus I would like to solicit
your opinion on this matter, in particular:
* whether OpenC++ should move to standard license?
* which license should OpenC++ choose?
The new license would cover future releases of OpenC++, as obviously
license on released files cannot be changed retroactively. Where
necessary relicensing may need to be negotiated with entities holding
copyright on the source code (Chiba, Xerox, others). It is possible that
legal advice will be necessary to determine the necessary actions. If
so, I will try to seek help from community organizations supporting
open-source movement.
I would like to ask all of you to give this matter a consideration and
POST YOUR OPINION ON THIS LIST
before Wed, September 29, 2004
In particular, I would like to recommend the following licenses for
consideration as potential target license for OpenC++:
* MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php)
* LGPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php)
* Boost (http://boost.c-view.org/more/license_info.html)
If you have any interest in OpenC++ project and its future, please spend
a few minutes on this issue and don't hesitate to post your opinion.
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Best regards
Grzegorz (OpenC++ Project Admin)
|
