vector-agg-general

[AGG] License change

[Jim C. <jim...@gm...>]

Maxim,

I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG 2.5. Any reason
to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make it impossible for us to
upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is fantastic work, but I would be
curious to know why you decided to change the terms, if that's
something you can talk about.

Cheers

Jim C

Re: [AGG] License change

[Vladimir V. <vla...@gm...>]

On 11/6/06, Jim Crafton <jim...@gm...> wrote:
> Maxim,
>
> I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG 2.5. Any reason
> to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make it impossible for us to
> upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is fantastic work, but I would be
> curious to know why you decided to change the terms, if that's
> something you can talk about.
>
> Cheers
> Jim C

Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.

    - Vlad

Re: [AGG] License change

[Dirck B. <lis...@da...>]

Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Jim Crafton <jim...@gm...> wrote:
>   
>> Maxim,
>>
>> I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG 2.5. Any reason
>> to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make it impossible for us to
>> upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is fantastic work, but I would be
>> curious to know why you decided to change the terms, if that's
>> something you can talk about.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jim C
>>     
>
> Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
> doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
> Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
> already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
> change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.
>
>     - Vlad
>   

Switching to a GPL license would be prohibitive for our product and our 
clients, as well.

d

( http://www.lib-sys.com )

Re: [AGG] License change

[Maxim S. <mc...@an...>]

> Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
> doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
> Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
> already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
> change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.

We can assume, Cairo is distributed under LGPL, right? If so, it becomes 
really incompatible with the GPL. For now I'd suggest you to keep using AGG 
2.4, at least until we can come up with a better legal solution. Basically, 
I want to prevent some "commercial monster corporations" from free use of 
AGG. But I do want the Linux world to keep using it for free. I'm not quite 
sure how well LGPL protects from uncontrolled free commercial use; if it 
does, I may re-think and switch to the LGPL. But I'm not willing to keep 
using totally free, BSD-like licences in future versions. Ideally, I'd like 
to come up with some kind of a QT-like licensing scheme.

McSeem

Re: [AGG] License change

[Klaas H. <db...@nl...>]

Maxim Shemanarev wrote:
>>Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
>>doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
>>Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
>>already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
>>change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> We can assume, Cairo is distributed under LGPL, right? If so, it becomes 
> really incompatible with the GPL. For now I'd suggest you to keep using AGG 
> 2.4, at least until we can come up with a better legal solution. Basically, 
> I want to prevent some "commercial monster corporations" from free use of 
> AGG. 

Having my own stuff LGPL/wxWidget license, i realized that i can't make money from it personally by selling it. Well not 
in the real sence that is. And i really wonder if a change to GPL license will allow you do do that?

I understand it is very likely 90%+ all your work, but having CVS now at sourceforge and all,
you must deal with copyrights of all that contributed, or remove those contributions first, before you change the license.
Of course you can fork on the basis of the old license, if everyone contributed agrees, that fork can be a different 
license. But saying the fork is in fact the new release, takes away the sourceforge project for those liking to continue 
on basis of the old license. Which is me, since only LGPL is compatible with wxWidgets license.

So can you explain who or we or is it just I :-)
And do you mean that when money is paid it is going to this project somehow?
Else why would the other developers agree on this license change?

But I do want the Linux world to keep using it for free. I'm not quite
> sure how well LGPL protects from uncontrolled free commercial use; if it 
> does, I may re-think and switch to the LGPL.

What means Uncontrolled here?
LGPL means that one can link to the library a commercial application. Changes made to it, can not be sold by that 
company as being an improved version, they must become part of the library.

  But I'm not willing to keep
> using totally free, BSD-like licences in future versions. Ideally, I'd like 
> to come up with some kind of a QT-like licensing scheme.

Don't like the change :-(
But i do understand that you want to make some money from it, but how to achieve this in the current state is really 
slipery.

Regards,

Klaas



-- 
Unclassified

Re: [AGG] License change

[Ben H. <be...@gl...>]

Klaas- you seem to be under the impression that McSeem is doing the
license change mainly so that he can profit from his work, but he did
mention something else very important- that he wants to prevent some
"commercial monster corporation" from profiting hugely by AGG, and this
is a very significant point, and in my opinion enough of a reason in
itself. Perhaps you can construct some special license for wxWidgets- I
don't think it's impossible.
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: vec...@li...
[mailto:vec...@li...] On Behalf Of
Klaas Holwerda
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:20 PM
To: Maxim Shemanarev; Anti-Grain Geometry
Subject: Re: [AGG] License change

Maxim Shemanarev wrote:
>>Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
>>doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
>>Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
>>already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
>>change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.
>=20
>=20
> We can assume, Cairo is distributed under LGPL, right? If so, it
becomes=20
> really incompatible with the GPL. For now I'd suggest you to keep
using AGG=20
> 2.4, at least until we can come up with a better legal solution.
Basically,=20
> I want to prevent some "commercial monster corporations" from free use
of=20
> AGG.=20

Having my own stuff LGPL/wxWidget license, i realized that i can't make
money from it personally by selling it. Well not=20
in the real sence that is. And i really wonder if a change to GPL
license will allow you do do that?

I understand it is very likely 90%+ all your work, but having CVS now at
sourceforge and all,
you must deal with copyrights of all that contributed, or remove those
contributions first, before you change the license.
Of course you can fork on the basis of the old license, if everyone
contributed agrees, that fork can be a different=20
license. But saying the fork is in fact the new release, takes away the
sourceforge project for those liking to continue=20
on basis of the old license. Which is me, since only LGPL is compatible
with wxWidgets license.

So can you explain who or we or is it just I :-)
And do you mean that when money is paid it is going to this project
somehow?
Else why would the other developers agree on this license change?

But I do want the Linux world to keep using it for free. I'm not quite
> sure how well LGPL protects from uncontrolled free commercial use; if
it=20
> does, I may re-think and switch to the LGPL.

What means Uncontrolled here?
LGPL means that one can link to the library a commercial application.
Changes made to it, can not be sold by that=20
company as being an improved version, they must become part of the
library.

  But I'm not willing to keep
> using totally free, BSD-like licences in future versions. Ideally, I'd
like=20
> to come up with some kind of a QT-like licensing scheme.

Don't like the change :-(
But i do understand that you want to make some money from it, but how to
achieve this in the current state is really=20
slipery.

Regards,

Klaas



--=20
Unclassified

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D=
DEVDE
V
_______________________________________________
Vector-agg-general mailing list
Vec...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general

Re: [AGG] License change

[Klaas H. <db...@nl...>]

Hi,

Ben Harper wrote:
> Klaas- you seem to be under the impression that McSeem is doing the
> license change mainly so that he can profit from his work,

If so, i would really not mind :-)
The problem is how he can do it, and if it is still feasable on basis of the current sourceforge project.
When i started my project on sourceforge, i did think about the consequences of doing that.
One of them is i think that anyone that contributes, even if small, does do it under the license as is, and i wonder if 
it can be changed so simple.
It seems the current license does allow forks under any other license, even GPL.

  but he did
> mention something else very important- that he wants to prevent some
> "commercial monster corporation" from profiting hugely by AGG, and this
> is a very significant point, and in my opinion enough of a reason in
> itself.

I understand very well. I also spend a great deal of my free time, writing LGPL/wxWidgets software, and i know it is 
used by some bigger companies with enough money. And the one that wrote the software, is not working for the company 
only contracted to do the work. The company does not even know he used mainly wxArt2D, still they get the money.
And it can be frustrating to realize that. Still the person did join my project and was of great help, and improved the 
library a lot. And that helps me to improve my software based on those libraries (which i mainly wrote myself ).
And is it not that what "free" software is all about, getting help! And some fun and ego mix ;-)

But i really see no way how to seperate types of commercial use, except maybe on an individual basis.
Qt license is discussed a lot, Linux GPL, windows GPL lately, but still a mystery when commercial usage starts.
Something like, you must by a commercial license when you start making commercial software. But if you started with GPL 
this is only possible, if its all yours.

  Perhaps you can construct some special license for wxWidgets- I
> don't think it's impossible.

wxWidgets and wxArt2d are libraries, and do allow commercial use. Of course it is not impossible to use Agg with them.
But in case of Agg under GPL commercial use stops there, for reason i tried to explain above.
LGPL would be fine for me i think, but does not really solve McSeem his concerns.

regards,

Klaas



-- 
Unclassified

Re: [AGG] License change

[klaas.holwerda <kho...@xs...>]

Hi,

Ben Harper wrote:
> Klaas- you seem to be under the impression that McSeem is doing the
> license change mainly so that he can profit from his work,

If so, i would really not mind :-)
The problem is how he can do it, and if it is still feasable on basis of 
the current sourceforge project.
When i started my project on sourceforge, i did think about the 
consequences of doing that.
One of them is i think that anyone that contributes, even if small, does 
do it under the license as is, and i wonder if it can be changed so simple.
It seems the current license does allow forks under any other license, 
even GPL.

 but he did
> mention something else very important- that he wants to prevent some
> "commercial monster corporation" from profiting hugely by AGG, and this
> is a very significant point, and in my opinion enough of a reason in
> itself.

I understand very well. I also spend a great deal of my free time, 
writing LGPL/wxWidgets software, and i know it is used by some bigger 
companies with enough money. And the one that wrote the software, is not 
working for the company only contracted to do the work. The company does 
not even know he used mainly wxArt2D, still they get the money when 
selling the application.
And it can be frustrating to realize that. Still the person did join my 
project and was of great help, and improved the library a lot. And that 
helps me to improve my software based on those libraries (which i mainly 
wrote myself ).
And is it not that what "free" software is all about, getting help! And 
some fun and ego mix ;-)

But i really see no way how to separate types of commercial use, except 
maybe on an individual basis.
Qt license is discussed a lot, Linux GPL, windows GPL lately, but still 
to me a mystery when commercial usage starts.
Something like, you must buy a commercial license when you start making 
commercial software. But if you started with GPL this is only possible, 
if its all yours.

 > Perhaps you can construct some special license for wxWidgets- I
> don't think it's impossible.
wxWidgets and wxArt2d are libraries, and do allow commercial use. Of 
course it is not impossible to use Agg with them.
But in case of Agg under GPL commercial use stops there, for reasons i 
tried to explain above. As they say GPL is viral :-(
LGPL would be fine for me i think, but does not really solve McSeem his 
concerns.

regards,

Klaas

Re: [AGG] License change

[Andreas P. <and...@gm...>]

Hi Maxim,

2006/12/11, Maxim Shemanarev <mc...@an...>:
> [..]
> sure how well LGPL protects from uncontrolled free commercial use; if it
> does, I may re-think and switch to the LGPL. But I'm not willing to keep
> using totally free, BSD-like licences in future versions. Ideally, I'd like
> to come up with some kind of a QT-like licensing scheme.

If I interpret the LGPL correctly the LGPL will be as strict as the GPL,
because of the "derived work" clause.

So if you use AGG to create a vector graphics rasterizer, and maybe
implement some of the concepts defined by AGG your code should
fall under the term of "derived work". So you have to release it under the
terms of the LGPL also.  One cannot simply link against AGG, due to
its configureable template nature, we all love that much.

Regards
Andreas Pokorny

Re: [AGG] License change

[Stuart P. <st...@gm...>]

On 12/10/06, Maxim Shemanarev <mc...@an...> wrote:
> > Indeed, I'm curious about the reasoning as well -- I was planning on
> > doing more in-depth exploration of using AGG as a Cairo backend for
> > Mozilla, when hardware-accelerated operations were not available (I
> > already have a basic cairo agg surface written up).  The license
> > change makes that plan impossible, unfortunately.
>
> We can assume, Cairo is distributed under LGPL, right?

No.  We (Mozilla) use Cairo under the MPL. (cairo is dual licensed LGPL/MPL)

stuart

Re: [AGG] License change

[Maxim S. <mc...@an...>]

Hi Dirc,

> Switching to a GPL license would be prohibitive for our product and our
> clients, as well.

We are working on a legal solution that allows us to prepare special
releases of AGG under a commercial license along with GPL. Currently you can
keep using AGG 2.4 for free, but I'll stop supporting it soon.
We are also working on different fee plans, to make it as flexible as
possible. It's hard to tell you concrete values right now, but there won't
be anything extraordinary. Depending on the projects and your revenue
we can even provide you a "free commercial license".
We will inform you soon about possible options.

McSeem

Re: [AGG] License change

[John H. <jdh...@ac...>]

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Crafton <jim...@gm...> writes:

    Jim> Maxim, I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG
    Jim> 2.5. Any reason to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make
    Jim> it impossible for us to upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is
    Jim> fantastic work, but I would be curious to know why you
    Jim> decided to change the terms, if that's something you can talk
    Jim> about.


I'll second that for matplotlib -- and can speak with reasonable
certainty that this will apply to the enthought tools that build upon
agg as well, since matplotlib, enthought and the rest of the
scientific computing tools in python are built on top of BSD
compatible licenses and go to considerable pains to avoid using any
GPL licensed code.

While the 2.4 branch works reasonably well for our current purposes, I
will regret being forced to remain there for eternity :-(

JDH

PS, below is a copy of a post I wrote earlier in another project I was
involved with arguing for more permissive, BSDish licenses:


I'll start by summarizing what many of you already know about open
source licenses. I believe this discussion is broadly correct, though
it is not a legal document and if you want legally precise statements
you should reference the original licenses cited here. The
Open-Source-Initiative is a clearing house for OS licenses, so you can
read more there.

The two dominant license variants in the wild are GPL-style and
BSD-style. There are countless other licenses that place specific
restrictions on code reuse, but the purpose of this document is to
discuss the differences between the GPL and BSD variants, specifically
in regards to my experience developing matplotlib and in my
discussions with other developers about licensing issues.

The best known and perhaps most widely used license is the GPL, which
in addition to granting you full rights to the source code including
redistribution, carries with it an extra obligation. If you use GPL
code in your own code, or link with it, your product must be released
under a GPL compatible license. I.e., you are required to give the source
code to other people and give them the right to redistribute it as
well. Many of the most famous and widely used open source projects are
released under the GPL, including linux, gcc and emacs.

The second major class are the BSD-style licenses (which includes MIT
and the python PSF license). These basically allow you to do whatever
you want with the code: ignore it, include it in your own open source
project, include it in your proprietary product, sell it,
whatever. python itself is released under a BSD compatible license, in
the sense that, quoting from the PSF license page

  There is no GPL-like "copyleft" restriction. Distributing
  binary-only versions of Python, modified or not, is allowed. There
  is no requirement to release any of your source code. You can also
  write extension modules for Python and provide them only in binary
  form.

Famous projects released under a BSD-style license in the permissive
sense of the last paragraph are the BSD operating system, python and
TeX.

I believe the choice of license is an important one, and I advocate a
BSD-style license. In my experience, the most important commodity an
open source project needs to succeed is users. Of course, doing
something useful is a prerequisite to getting users, but I also
believe users are something of a prerequisite to doing something
useful. It is very difficult to design in a vacuum, and users drive
good software by suggesting features and finding bugs. If you satisfy
the needs of some users, you will inadvertently end up satisfying the
needs of a large class of users. And users become developers,
especially if they have some skills and find a feature they need
implemented, or if they have a thesis to write. Once you have a lot of
users and a number of developers, a network effect kicks in,
exponentially increasing your users and developers. 

So I believe the number one (or at least number two) commodity an open
source project can possess is mind share, which means you want as many
damned users using your software as you can get. Even though you are
giving it away for free, you have to market your software, promote it,
and support it as if you were getting paid for it. Now, how does this
relate to licensing, you are asking?

Many software companies will not use GPL code in their own software,
even those that are highly committed to open source development, such
as enthought, out of legitimate concern that use of the GPL will
"infect" their code base by its viral nature. In effect, they want to
retain the right to release some proprietary code. And in my
experience, companies make for some of the best developers, because
they have the resources to get a job done, even a boring one, if they
need it in their code. Two of the matplotlib backends (FLTK and WX)
were contributed by private sector companies who are using matplotlib
either internally or in a commercial product -- I doubt these
companies would have been using matplotlib if the code were GPL. In my
experience, the benefits of collaborating with the private sector are
real, whereas the fear that some private company will "steal" your
product and sell it in a proprietary application leaving you with
nothing is not.

There is a lot of GPL code in the world, and it is a constant reality
in the development of matplotlib that when we want to reuse some
algorithm, we have to go on a hunt for a non-GPL version. Most
recently this occurred in a search for a good contouring algorithm. I
worry that the "license wars", the effect of which are starting to be
felt on many projects, have a potential to do real harm to open source
software development. There are two unpalatable options. 1) Go with
GPL and lose the mind-share of the private sector 2) Forgo GPL code
and retain the contribution of the private sector. This is a very
tough decision because their is a lot of very high quality software
that is GPL and we need to use it; they don't call the license viral
for nothing.

The third option, which is what is motivating me to write this, is to
convince people who have released code under the GPL to re-release it
under a BSD compatible license. Package authors retain the copyright
to their software and have discretion to re-release it under a license
of their choosing. Many people choose the GPL when releasing a package
because it is the most famous open source license, and did not
consider issues such as those raised here when choosing a
license. When asked, these developers will often be amenable to
re-releasing their code under a more permissive license. Fernando
Perez did this with ipython, which was released under the LGPL and
then re-released under a BSD license to ease integration with
matplotlib, scipy and enthought code. The LGPL is more permissive than
the GPL, allowing you to link with it non-virally, but many companies
are still loath to use it out of legal concerns, and you cannot reuse
LGPL code in a proprietary product.

So I encourage you to release your code under a BSD compatible
license, and when you encounter an open source developer whose code
you want to use, encourage them to do the same. Feel free to forward
this document on them.

Comments, suggestions for improvements, corrections, etc, should be
sent to jdh...@ac... 

Re: [AGG] License change

[eric <er...@en...>]

Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we (enthought) are 
forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for which I 
am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.

It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support 
commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one approach.  We have 
also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style 
licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am sure 
that you've made this decision very deliberately fully understanding its 
ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.

As for 2.4, I hope that there will be a core of people that can keep up 
with bug-fixes on that branch.  We, of course, are dedicated to this 
effort for the long run or until we can find a suitable alternative 
(which is probably a long-time coming).

thanks,
eric

John Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Crafton <jim...@gm...> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
>     Jim> Maxim, I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG
>     Jim> 2.5. Any reason to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make
>     Jim> it impossible for us to upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is
>     Jim> fantastic work, but I would be curious to know why you
>     Jim> decided to change the terms, if that's something you can talk
>     Jim> about.
>
>
> I'll second that for matplotlib -- and can speak with reasonable
> certainty that this will apply to the enthought tools that build upon
> agg as well, since matplotlib, enthought and the rest of the
> scientific computing tools in python are built on top of BSD
> compatible licenses and go to considerable pains to avoid using any
> GPL licensed code.
>
> While the 2.4 branch works reasonably well for our current purposes, I
> will regret being forced to remain there for eternity :-(
>
> JDH
>
> PS, below is a copy of a post I wrote earlier in another project I was
> involved with arguing for more permissive, BSDish licenses:
>
>
> I'll start by summarizing what many of you already know about open
> source licenses. I believe this discussion is broadly correct, though
> it is not a legal document and if you want legally precise statements
> you should reference the original licenses cited here. The
> Open-Source-Initiative is a clearing house for OS licenses, so you can
> read more there.
>
> The two dominant license variants in the wild are GPL-style and
> BSD-style. There are countless other licenses that place specific
> restrictions on code reuse, but the purpose of this document is to
> discuss the differences between the GPL and BSD variants, specifically
> in regards to my experience developing matplotlib and in my
> discussions with other developers about licensing issues.
>
> The best known and perhaps most widely used license is the GPL, which
> in addition to granting you full rights to the source code including
> redistribution, carries with it an extra obligation. If you use GPL
> code in your own code, or link with it, your product must be released
> under a GPL compatible license. I.e., you are required to give the source
> code to other people and give them the right to redistribute it as
> well. Many of the most famous and widely used open source projects are
> released under the GPL, including linux, gcc and emacs.
>
> The second major class are the BSD-style licenses (which includes MIT
> and the python PSF license). These basically allow you to do whatever
> you want with the code: ignore it, include it in your own open source
> project, include it in your proprietary product, sell it,
> whatever. python itself is released under a BSD compatible license, in
> the sense that, quoting from the PSF license page
>
>   There is no GPL-like "copyleft" restriction. Distributing
>   binary-only versions of Python, modified or not, is allowed. There
>   is no requirement to release any of your source code. You can also
>   write extension modules for Python and provide them only in binary
>   form.
>
> Famous projects released under a BSD-style license in the permissive
> sense of the last paragraph are the BSD operating system, python and
> TeX.
>
> I believe the choice of license is an important one, and I advocate a
> BSD-style license. In my experience, the most important commodity an
> open source project needs to succeed is users. Of course, doing
> something useful is a prerequisite to getting users, but I also
> believe users are something of a prerequisite to doing something
> useful. It is very difficult to design in a vacuum, and users drive
> good software by suggesting features and finding bugs. If you satisfy
> the needs of some users, you will inadvertently end up satisfying the
> needs of a large class of users. And users become developers,
> especially if they have some skills and find a feature they need
> implemented, or if they have a thesis to write. Once you have a lot of
> users and a number of developers, a network effect kicks in,
> exponentially increasing your users and developers. 
>
> So I believe the number one (or at least number two) commodity an open
> source project can possess is mind share, which means you want as many
> damned users using your software as you can get. Even though you are
> giving it away for free, you have to market your software, promote it,
> and support it as if you were getting paid for it. Now, how does this
> relate to licensing, you are asking?
>
> Many software companies will not use GPL code in their own software,
> even those that are highly committed to open source development, such
> as enthought, out of legitimate concern that use of the GPL will
> "infect" their code base by its viral nature. In effect, they want to
> retain the right to release some proprietary code. And in my
> experience, companies make for some of the best developers, because
> they have the resources to get a job done, even a boring one, if they
> need it in their code. Two of the matplotlib backends (FLTK and WX)
> were contributed by private sector companies who are using matplotlib
> either internally or in a commercial product -- I doubt these
> companies would have been using matplotlib if the code were GPL. In my
> experience, the benefits of collaborating with the private sector are
> real, whereas the fear that some private company will "steal" your
> product and sell it in a proprietary application leaving you with
> nothing is not.
>
> There is a lot of GPL code in the world, and it is a constant reality
> in the development of matplotlib that when we want to reuse some
> algorithm, we have to go on a hunt for a non-GPL version. Most
> recently this occurred in a search for a good contouring algorithm. I
> worry that the "license wars", the effect of which are starting to be
> felt on many projects, have a potential to do real harm to open source
> software development. There are two unpalatable options. 1) Go with
> GPL and lose the mind-share of the private sector 2) Forgo GPL code
> and retain the contribution of the private sector. This is a very
> tough decision because their is a lot of very high quality software
> that is GPL and we need to use it; they don't call the license viral
> for nothing.
>
> The third option, which is what is motivating me to write this, is to
> convince people who have released code under the GPL to re-release it
> under a BSD compatible license. Package authors retain the copyright
> to their software and have discretion to re-release it under a license
> of their choosing. Many people choose the GPL when releasing a package
> because it is the most famous open source license, and did not
> consider issues such as those raised here when choosing a
> license. When asked, these developers will often be amenable to
> re-releasing their code under a more permissive license. Fernando
> Perez did this with ipython, which was released under the LGPL and
> then re-released under a BSD license to ease integration with
> matplotlib, scipy and enthought code. The LGPL is more permissive than
> the GPL, allowing you to link with it non-virally, but many companies
> are still loath to use it out of legal concerns, and you cannot reuse
> LGPL code in a proprietary product.
>
> So I encourage you to release your code under a BSD compatible
> license, and when you encounter an open source developer whose code
> you want to use, encourage them to do the same. Feel free to forward
> this document on them.
>
> Comments, suggestions for improvements, corrections, etc, should be
> sent to jdh...@ac... 
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Vector-agg-general mailing list
> Vec...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>
>   

Re: [AGG] License change

[Vladimir V. <vla...@gm...>]

On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en...> wrote:
> Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we (enthought) are
> forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for which I
> am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
>
> It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support
> commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one approach.  We have
> also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style
> licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am sure
> that you've made this decision very deliberately fully understanding its
> ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.

Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any claims
about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary files, etc.).

    - Vlad

Re: [AGG] License change

[Bill B. <wb...@gm...>]

GPL won't work with wxArt2D either.  Looks like we'll be sticking with 2.4too.
Perhaps there should be a community fork of 2.4 for maintenance, assuming
Maxim isn't interested in supporting it indefinitely.

--bb

On 11/7/06, Vladimir Vukicevic <vla...@gm...> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en...> wrote:
> > Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we (enthought) are
> > forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for which I
> > am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
> >
> > It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support
> > commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one approach.  We have
> > also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style
> > licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am sure
> > that you've made this decision very deliberately fully understanding its
> > ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.
>
> Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
> source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
> MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any claims
> about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary files, etc.).
>
>     - Vlad
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
> easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Vector-agg-general mailing list
> Vec...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>

Re: [AGG] License change

[Vladimir Z. <vol...@gm...>]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:32:56 -0500
"Jim Crafton" <jim...@gm...> wrote:

> Maxim,
> 
> I was recently made aware of the license change in AGG 2.5. Any reason
> to switch to GPL? This will pretty much make it impossible for us to
> upgrade. Granted the 2.4 version is fantastic work, but I would be
> curious to know why you decided to change the terms, if that's
> something you can talk about.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jim C

I also support this question. There is a note on the site about the
request for a license for a new agg. I sent a letter asking for that
license but have no answer yet. So, maybe this discussion will clarify
things for me.

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir

Re: [AGG] License change

[Udo G. <ud...@no...>]

Hello Vladimir,

Monday, November 6, 2006, 10:13:11 PM, you wrote:
VZ> I also support this question. There is a note on the site about the
VZ> request for a license for a new agg. I sent a letter asking for that
VZ> license but have no answer yet. So, maybe this discussion will clarify
VZ> things for me.

I'm not that concerned about GPL since we use it in a project that's
GPL anyway (Gnash) but I'd rather like to know why there has not been
any posting or reply from Maxim for quite a while now...? Out of town?
:/


Udo

Re: [AGG] License change

[<ag...@ia...>]

I too will be staying at 2.4 for the near term.  I will inquire about 
the licencing options for future products and see what he says.

I have no problem with paying a licence fee for tools used to build 
commercial software.  But I won't be paying a premium for a package 
with no documentation.  If it's too expensive, I'll probably go elsewhere.

--
Ian Smith

Re: [AGG] License change

[eric j. <er...@en...>]

Lets avoid the F word until we learn more about Maxim's plans. :-)  My 
bet is there will be a good way to work toegther within the current 
project to handle 2.4 maintenance even as Maxim pushes 2.5 in its new 
direction. 

eric 

Bill Baxter wrote:

> GPL won't work with wxArt2D either.  Looks like we'll be sticking with 
> 2.4 too. 
> Perhaps there should be a community fork of 2.4 for maintenance, 
> assuming Maxim isn't interested in supporting it indefinitely.
>
> --bb
>
> On 11/7/06, *Vladimir Vukicevic* <vla...@gm... 
> <mailto:vla...@gm...>> wrote:
>
>     On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en... <mailto:er...@en...>>
>     wrote:
>     > Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we
>     (enthought) are
>     > forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for
>     which I
>     > am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
>     >
>     > It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support
>     > commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one
>     approach.  We have
>     > also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style
>     > licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am
>     sure
>     > that you've made this decision very deliberately fully
>     understanding its
>     > ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.
>
>     Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
>     source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
>     MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any claims
>     about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary files, etc.).
>
>         - Vlad
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
>     security?
>     Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your
>     job easier
>     Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
>     Geronimo
>     http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>     <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Vector-agg-general mailing list
>     Vec...@li...
>     <mailto:Vec...@li...>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Vector-agg-general mailing list
>Vec...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>  
>

Re: [AGG] License change

[Marc V. O. <mar...@ea...>]

Just my thoughts:

=95 2.4 is better then any other open source project out there, and =20
also much better then many commercial solutions.
=95 But personally I can understand Maxim's move with 2.5 it is time =20
that people that use it in a commercial way, contribute to this =20
project. You can't do charity the rest of your live.

just my 5 cents.

marc


On 06 Nov 2006, at 22:14, eric jones wrote:

> Lets avoid the F word until we learn more about Maxim's plans. :-)  My
> bet is there will be a good way to work toegther within the current
> project to handle 2.4 maintenance even as Maxim pushes 2.5 in its new
> direction.
>
> eric
>
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> GPL won't work with wxArt2D either.  Looks like we'll be sticking =20
>> with
>> 2.4 too.
>> Perhaps there should be a community fork of 2.4 for maintenance,
>> assuming Maxim isn't interested in supporting it indefinitely.
>>
>> --bb
>>
>> On 11/7/06, *Vladimir Vukicevic* <vla...@gm...
>> <mailto:vla...@gm...>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en... <mailto:er...@en...>>
>>     wrote:
>>> Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we
>>     (enthought) are
>>> forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for
>>     which I
>>> am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
>>>
>>> It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support
>>> commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one
>>     approach.  We have
>>> also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style
>>> licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am
>>     sure
>>> that you've made this decision very deliberately fully
>>     understanding its
>>> ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.
>>
>>     Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
>>     source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
>>     MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any =20
>> claims
>>     about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary =20
>> files, etc.).
>>
>>         - Vlad
>>
>>     =20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20=

>> ----
>>     Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
>>     security?
>>     Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make =20
>> your
>>     job easier
>>     Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
>>     Geronimo
>>     http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
>>     <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Vector-agg-general mailing list
>>     Vec...@li...
>>     <mailto:Vec...@li...>
>>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20=

>> ---
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20=

>> ----
>> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20
>> security?
>> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20=

>> job easier
>> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20
>> Geronimo
>> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------=20=

>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Vector-agg-general mailing list
>> Vec...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=20=

> ---
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20
> security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20
> job easier
> Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20
> Geronimo
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
> cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
> _______________________________________________
> Vector-agg-general mailing list
> Vec...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general

Re: [AGG] License change

[Craig M. <cra...@sp...>]

If it was LGPLd, or that other license about source code changes getting
contributed I'd agree with you, but a GPL just excludes commercial software
developers.

--Craig
 

-----Original Message-----
From: vec...@li...
[mailto:vec...@li...] On Behalf Of Marc
Van Olmen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 7:23 PM
To: Anti-Grain Geometry
Subject: Re: [AGG] License change

Just my thoughts:

. 2.4 is better then any other open source project out there, and also much
better then many commercial solutions.
. But personally I can understand Maxim's move with 2.5 it is time that
people that use it in a commercial way, contribute to this project. You
can't do charity the rest of your live.

just my 5 cents.

marc


On 06 Nov 2006, at 22:14, eric jones wrote:

> Lets avoid the F word until we learn more about Maxim's plans. :-)  My 
> bet is there will be a good way to work toegther within the current 
> project to handle 2.4 maintenance even as Maxim pushes 2.5 in its new 
> direction.
>
> eric
>
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>> GPL won't work with wxArt2D either.  Looks like we'll be sticking 
>> with
>> 2.4 too.
>> Perhaps there should be a community fork of 2.4 for maintenance, 
>> assuming Maxim isn't interested in supporting it indefinitely.
>>
>> --bb
>>
>> On 11/7/06, *Vladimir Vukicevic* <vla...@gm... 
>> <mailto:vla...@gm...>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en... <mailto:er...@en...>>
>>     wrote:
>>> Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we
>>     (enthought) are
>>> forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for
>>     which I
>>> am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
>>>
>>> It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support 
>>> commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one
>>     approach.  We have
>>> also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style 
>>> licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am
>>     sure
>>> that you've made this decision very deliberately fully
>>     understanding its
>>> ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.
>>
>>     Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
>>     source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
>>     MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any 
>> claims
>>     about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary files, 
>> etc.).
>>
>>         - Vlad
>>
>>      
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>     Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
>>     security?
>>     Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make 
>> your
>>     job easier
>>     Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
>>     Geronimo
>>     http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>>     <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? 
>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Vector-agg-general mailing list
>>     Vec...@li...
>>     <mailto:Vec...@li...>
>>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, 
>> security?
>> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your 
>> job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on 
>> Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?
>> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Vector-agg-general mailing list
>> Vec...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, 
> security?
> Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job 
> easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on 
> Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?
> cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Vector-agg-general mailing list
> Vec...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Vector-agg-general mailing list
Vec...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general

Re: [AGG] License change

[Ismail D. <is...@pa...>]

07 Kas 2006 Sal 05:31 tarihinde, Craig Miller =C5=9Funlar=C4=B1 yazm=C4=B1=
=C5=9Ft=C4=B1:=20
> If it was LGPLd, or that other license about source code changes getting
> contributed I'd agree with you, but a GPL just excludes commercial softwa=
re
> developers.

Possibly Maksim will just dual license like Qt.

/ismail

Re: [AGG] License change

[Craig M. <cra...@sp...>]

Hope so.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: vec...@li...
[mailto:vec...@li...] On Behalf Of
Ismail Donmez
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:01 AM
To: Anti-Grain Geometry
Subject: Re: [AGG] License change

07 Kas 2006 Sal 05:31 tarihinde, Craig Miller =FEunlar=FD =
yazm=FD=FEt=FD:=20
> If it was LGPLd, or that other license about source code changes=20
> getting contributed I'd agree with you, but a GPL just excludes=20
> commercial software developers.

Possibly Maksim will just dual license like Qt.

/ismail

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =
security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D=
121642
_______________________________________________
Vector-agg-general mailing list
Vec...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general

Re: [AGG] License change

[Bill B. <wb...@gm...>]

Yep. 2.4 is great.  It does everything I need, at least.  So I definitely
don't have a problem sticking with it.
I'm not sure what else is coming, but chances are I don't really need it.
:-)

By the way, I used AGG 2.3 for this project which I presented at
Eurographics in September:
    http://www.cavie-x.net/doodle/

I do work for a company, but this is not a commercial product or anything.
It's a just a research project.
I can't use GPL (and wouldn't wish to even if I could) for this kind of
thing.  I do try to open source any generally useful peripheral things I do=
,
though, or basic libraries I develop in the course of my research.  Things
like imdebug (an image debugging utiltity -
http://www.billbaxter.com/projects/imdebug) and my tablet library
http://www.billbaxter.com/projects/bbtablet).  I use the ZLIB license for
those things.  I also contribute occasionally to open source (but non-GPL)
projects, like AGG used to be.  (I see my name is still listed near the top
of the News and history page -- whee!
http://www.antigrain.com/news/index.html).

But I can also see Maxim's desire to make a profit off of AGG.  I think it
makes perfect sense to have two versions -- one older, but very capable, AG=
G
under a liberal license, and the latest AGG under dual GPL/commercial.
That way everyone can have a tasty slice of Agg, and McSeem can maybe make
some money too.

Regards,
--bb


On 11/7/06, Marc Van Olmen <mar...@ea...> wrote:
>
> Just my thoughts:
>
> =95 2.4 is better then any other open source project out there, and
> also much better then many commercial solutions.
> =95 But personally I can understand Maxim's move with 2.5 it is time
> that people that use it in a commercial way, contribute to this
> project. You can't do charity the rest of your live.
>
> just my 5 cents.
>
> marc
>
>

Re: [AGG] License change

[eric j. <er...@en...>]

Marc Van Olmen wrote:

>Just my thoughts:
>
>=95 2.4 is better then any other open source project out there, and =20
>also much better then many commercial solutions.
> =20
>
Agreed.  It is an amazing tool.

>=95 But personally I can understand Maxim's move with 2.5 it is time =20
>that people that use it in a commercial way, contribute to this =20
>project. You can't do charity the rest of your live.
> =20
>
The point of my earlier post was that you can have your cake and eat it=20
too.  It is possible to build BSD licensed packages (www.scipy.org,=20
code.enthought.com) that allow the widest possible user community  while=20
also making a living.  I believe these tools are good for the world and=20
am glad that others can freely use them, but Enthought is certainly not=20
a charitable organization.

If memory serves me, a portion of agg development, though certainly not=20
a majority, was commercially supported even as it had a BSD license. =20
The GPL dual licensed model is an alternative approach that is used=20
successfully by MySQL and others.  Perhaps the change can increase the=20
economic value of agg for Maxim.  I do not know.  If this happens, then=20
agg will improve more quickly I am sure because of the increased=20
investment in the tool, and Maxim will make a good living doing=20
something he loves.  That is all good stuff.  There is a downside,=20
however, and that is that it can't be used by as wide of a development=20
community.  Many people, early on, chose agg over libart and other=20
alternatives precisely because of the openness of its BSD license.=20

Success isn't just a matter of superior technology.  I would argue that=20
agg's adoption is not only due to Maxim's amazing talent, but also a=20
result of its license.  I believe that changing to the GPL will adversly=20
affect agg's future instead of enhancing it, and I'd much prefer a=20
different path.  The beauty of the BSD, however, is that the choice we=20
made 3+ years ago to base an important part of our technology on agg is=20
protected [though de-valued], even if the future license changes.  That=20
is why we were willing to use it.

eric

>just my 5 cents.
>
>marc
>
>
>On 06 Nov 2006, at 22:14, eric jones wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>Lets avoid the F word until we learn more about Maxim's plans. :-)  My
>>bet is there will be a good way to work toegther within the current
>>project to handle 2.4 maintenance even as Maxim pushes 2.5 in its new
>>direction.
>>
>>eric
>>
>>Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>   =20
>>
>>>GPL won't work with wxArt2D either.  Looks like we'll be sticking =20
>>>with
>>>2.4 too.
>>>Perhaps there should be a community fork of 2.4 for maintenance,
>>>assuming Maxim isn't interested in supporting it indefinitely.
>>>
>>>--bb
>>>
>>>On 11/7/06, *Vladimir Vukicevic* <vla...@gm...
>>><mailto:vla...@gm...>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On 11/6/06, eric <er...@en... <mailto:er...@en...>>
>>>    wrote:
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>Smokes! I just saw this.  Indeed this change means we
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    (enthought) are
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>forever on 2.4.  That is a shame for us.  But, 2.4 is a gift for
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    which I
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>am very grateful.  Thank you Maxim.
>>>>
>>>>It looks like your shooting for a dual license to support
>>>>commercialization of the tool.  That is certainly one
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    approach.  We have
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>also been successful as an open source company based on BSD style
>>>>licenses.  I would argue that you keep the BSD license, but I am
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    sure
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>that you've made this decision very deliberately fully
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    understanding its
>>>     =20
>>>
>>>>ramifications for current users and the project's future direction.
>>>>       =20
>>>>
>>>    Indeed, or an MPL or MPL-style license (essentially, the MPL is
>>>    source-level license that just requires any changes to existing
>>>    MPL-licensed files to be made public, but does not make any =20
>>>claims
>>>    about the compiled link -- you can link with proprietary =20
>>>files, etc.).
>>>
>>>        - Vlad
>>>
>>>    =20
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------=20
>>>----
>>>    Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services,
>>>    security?
>>>    Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make =20
>>>your
>>>    job easier
>>>    Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
>>>    Geronimo
>>>    http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>>>cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
>>>    <http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>>>cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642>
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    Vector-agg-general mailing list
>>>    Vec...@li...
>>>    <mailto:Vec...@li...>
>>>    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------=20
>>>---
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------=20
>>>----
>>>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20
>>>security?
>>>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20
>>>job easier
>>>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20
>>>Geronimo
>>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>>>cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------=20
>>>---
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Vector-agg-general mailing list
>>>Vec...@li...
>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>>
>>>
>>>     =20
>>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------=20
>>---
>>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, =20
>>security?
>>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your =20
>>job easier
>>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache =20
>>Geronimo
>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?=20
>>cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D121642
>>_______________________________________________
>>Vector-agg-general mailing list
>>Vec...@li...
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>>   =20
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
>Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security=
?
>Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job e=
asier
>Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geroni=
mo
>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=3Dlnk&kid=3D120709&bid=3D263057&dat=3D=
121642
>_______________________________________________
>Vector-agg-general mailing list
>Vec...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vector-agg-general
>
> =20
>