Menu
▾
▴
xmlvm-users
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-03 00:21:38
|
Hello ! I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed license, on who is linking on what. Thanks |
|
From: Wolfgang K. <wol...@xm...> - 2009-10-03 16:22:09
|
We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this topic. Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing wrong with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the open source community. In our case we want to be given something back which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your project under GPL as well. -- Wolfgang Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > Hello ! > > I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, > and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? > > I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed > license, on who is linking on what. > > Thanks > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-04 23:15:09
|
On 03 Οκτ 2009, at 7:21 μ.μ., Wolfgang Korn wrote: > We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have > already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this > topic. > > Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build > software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do > commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing > wrong > with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point > of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the > open source community. In our case we want to be given something back > which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary > funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant > contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a > linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your > project under GPL as well. > > -- Wolfgang Yes, I understand your point of view. I am too an open source developer and I have experienced more than once the situation you are describing. I was even offered some kind of "payment" to implement a couple of commercial features, which (payment) was retracted later on (and I was really pissed off). Still, I don't feel comfortable to use at the heart of my (possible future) application something that is not, at the end of the day, as free as it sounds. There is not any (popular) open source library (not to mention part of a build tool-chain) that is still under the restrictive GPL License. Please let me remind you QT (and of course KDE), and how many developers left this camp to ride the Gnome/GTK wagon -- even when TrollTech decided to give it under a dual license, it was already too late. Of course, giving back to the community is something that I not only vote for, but it's also something I try to do it (and persuade others to do it) as much as I can. That's why I talked about LGPL which exactly ensures that. I know that the core code of this project belongs to you (as a group), and you can do whatever you want with it. But, believe me, I am looking at the whole situation with great skepticism and I have the feeling that there a lot of people like me. I just can't trust an alpha/beta open source project which does not provide any warranty (it's GPL, right?), only because my favorite language is Java (with Obj-C being my second choice). You project sounds really promising, but it's really not known at all. I strongly believe that you'll give a great boost on your project if only you have a more friendly license even from commercial applications. Just imagine the history of Linux, if GCC and it's products and libraries were stuck to GPL. |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-04 22:44:50
|
Any takers for starting a XMLVM compatible library (for Java classes) under an Apache style license hosted at code.google.com? I will be happy to contribute some code seeding it. Thanks Inder On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Wolfgang Korn <wol...@xm...> wrote: > We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have > already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this topic. > > Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build > software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do > commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing wrong > with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point > of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the > open source community. In our case we want to be given something back > which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary > funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant > contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a > linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your > project under GPL as well. > > -- Wolfgang > > > Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: > > Hello ! > > > > I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, > > and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? > > > > I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed > > license, on who is linking on what. > > > > Thanks > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register > now! > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > > _______________________________________________ > > xmlvm-users mailing list > > xml...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > |
|
From: Kevin G. <ke...@co...> - 2009-10-05 07:12:16
|
Fragmenting a community that is so fledging would be the best way to kill any open source project. There is a route to a more permissive license, i.e. the GPL with linking exception, if you're prepared to make a contribution to project. If you were going to do the work to produce a XMLVM compatible compatibility library as a separate library (you'd need Java classes and the Cocoa framework to make it useable for anything) then why not spend this effort on contributing into the XMLVM compatibility library there by getting a linking exception license? Kev 2009/10/4 Inderjeet Singh <ind...@gm...> > > Any takers for starting a XMLVM compatible library (for Java classes) under > an Apache style license hosted at code.google.com? I will be happy to > contribute some code seeding it. > Thanks > Inder > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Wolfgang Korn <wol...@xm...> wrote: > >> We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have >> already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this topic. >> >> Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build >> software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do >> commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing wrong >> with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point >> of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the >> open source community. In our case we want to be given something back >> which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary >> funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant >> contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a >> linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your >> project under GPL as well. >> >> -- Wolfgang >> >> >> Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: >> > Hello ! >> > >> > I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, >> > and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? >> > >> > I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed >> > license, on who is linking on what. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >> > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and >> stay >> > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >> now! >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >> > _______________________________________________ >> > xmlvm-users mailing list >> > xml...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >> now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2009-10-05 07:43:06
|
I absolutely I agree with Kevin on this. If you make a contribution, you will get a linking exception and you can use XMLVM for your commercial projects. I don't see how trying to form a different project is of any benefit to you or to the OpenSource community. Let me emphasize that we are still quite young and we are still in the process to form the OpenSource nature of the project. We are open to other licensing models but so far this seems to be the one that works for most. However, if we see that a lot of the people in our community have problems with it, we can think about it. Maybe this is the time to ask others on the mailing list, that so far have been quiet, to see what their opinion is. Any input is welcome. Thanks // Sascha On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Kevin Glass <ke...@co...> wrote: > Fragmenting a community that is so fledging would be the best way to kill > any open source project. There is a route to a more permissive license, i.e. > the GPL with linking exception, if you're prepared to make a contribution to > project. > > If you were going to do the work to produce a XMLVM compatible > compatibility library as a separate library (you'd need Java classes and the > Cocoa framework to make it useable for anything) then why not spend this > effort on contributing into the XMLVM compatibility library there by getting > a linking exception license? > > Kev > > 2009/10/4 Inderjeet Singh <ind...@gm...> > > >> Any takers for starting a XMLVM compatible library (for Java classes) >> under an Apache style license hosted at code.google.com? I will be happy >> to contribute some code seeding it. >> Thanks >> Inder >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Wolfgang Korn <wol...@xm...> wrote: >> >>> We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have >>> already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this topic. >>> >>> Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build >>> software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do >>> commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing wrong >>> with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point >>> of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the >>> open source community. In our case we want to be given something back >>> which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary >>> funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant >>> contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a >>> linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your >>> project under GPL as well. >>> >>> -- Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: >>> > Hello ! >>> > >>> > I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, >>> > and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? >>> > >>> > I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed >>> > license, on who is linking on what. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >>> > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart >>> your >>> > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and >>> stay >>> > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >>> now! >>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > xmlvm-users mailing list >>> > xml...@li... >>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >>> now! >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xmlvm-users mailing list >>> xml...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >> now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...> - 2009-10-05 08:33:04
|
On 05 Οκτ 2009, at 10:42 π.μ., Sascha Haeberling wrote: > ... > Let me emphasize that we are still quite young and we are still in > the process to form the OpenSource nature of the project. We are > open to other licensing models but so far this seems to be the one > that works for most. However, if we see that a lot of the people in > our community have problems with it, we can think about it. I actually agree with that, that's why I started this thread and ask for another licensing model, instead of open a new project at soureforge and go from then. Forking is something that is killing open source sometimes. ... > • If you would like to not disclose the source code of your app we > understand that. In this case you can make a contribution to the > project. Donation is just one option, you can also submit some code > or help XMLVM in other ways (e.g. spread the word). In this case we > will grant you a linking exception. With this you don't have to > disclose your source code when you generate your app using XMLVM. Well I don't know if it's me, but now this statement looks more promising than this one > ... This can be monetary > funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant > contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a > linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your > project under GPL as well. which seems to follow the model "(money || hardware) && significant contribution" :) Part of the problem I think it is you don't somewhere clearly state what exactly you want back. a) How much money? b) Code contribution? Is a single patch enough? In any case, giving patches back is not only "the right thing", but it's also required! c) Spread the word, like stating in the about box of the application which library we are using? d) What other forms of contribution do you accept? GPL with the linking exception is just fine of course, although I believe this should be the default (as for example in the Classpath project). Please also note that if someone wants to use your code in a commercial project without asking and publish in the AppStore (that's all this discussion about, right?), there is NO legal way to find it out. You won't have access to the binary which is bounded with Apple's license, not to mention how difficult it would be to reverse engineer code compiled with -O3 (or better :P ) So everybody could use your code and give back nothing without knowing it. It sounds like you punish the people who come here and want to follow your model "by the book". For me though the problem is not that. The problem is I hesitate to invest[1] on a project in which tomorrow someone might slum the door on my face. There is a good reason only applications with GPL license have survived and blossom and not libraries. [1] invest as in learning how to use it, expand it, give of course code back, advertise it or maybe pay for it, and in general spend time with it |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 15:35:23
|
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Sascha Haeberling <sa...@xm...> wrote: > I absolutely I agree with Kevin on this. If you make a contribution, you > will get a linking exception and you can use XMLVM for your commercial > projects. I don't see how trying to form a different project is of any > benefit to you or to the OpenSource community. > Let me emphasize that we are still quite young and we are still in the > process to form the OpenSource nature of the project. We are open to other > licensing models but so far this seems to be the one that works for most. > However, if we see that a lot of the people in our community have problems > with it, we can think about it. > Is it possible to post a time-frame in which you will make this decision? I had asked this question in early July, and I am not sure how much longer I will have to wait to make my decisions about whether to wait for XMLVM or use something else. Thanks Inder |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 15:22:45
|
My intention is not to fragment, and I respect the desire of XMLVM creators to choose whatever licensing model they want. I am only talking about the ported Java library classes that you have to include in any XMLVM-based project, not the code translator or other parts of XMLVM. For another open-source (Apache license) project (which I now think is quite complimentary to XMLVM) that I started, I need to write a port for Java library classes to Objective C. While working on it, I realized that if I could design the library to be compatible with XMLVM. I havent done much work on it yet (other priorities), but the email by Panayotis made me wonder if that would be useful to others as well. Inder On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Kevin Glass <ke...@co...> wrote: > Fragmenting a community that is so fledging would be the best way to kill > any open source project. There is a route to a more permissive license, i.e. > the GPL with linking exception, if you're prepared to make a contribution to > project. > > If you were going to do the work to produce a XMLVM compatible > compatibility library as a separate library (you'd need Java classes and the > Cocoa framework to make it useable for anything) then why not spend this > effort on contributing into the XMLVM compatibility library there by getting > a linking exception license? > > Kev > > 2009/10/4 Inderjeet Singh <ind...@gm...> > > >> Any takers for starting a XMLVM compatible library (for Java classes) >> under an Apache style license hosted at code.google.com? I will be happy >> to contribute some code seeding it. >> Thanks >> Inder >> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Wolfgang Korn <wol...@xm...> wrote: >> >>> We carefully decided to put our project under GPL. And there have >>> already been some discussions on the mailing list concerning this topic. >>> >>> Usually people are having problems with the GPL if they want to build >>> software which is not open source - mostly because they want to do >>> commercial apps and want to make money out of it. There is nothing wrong >>> with writing commercial apps based on open source tools. But our point >>> of view is, that in such a case something has to be given back to the >>> open source community. In our case we want to be given something back >>> which helps us to further improve our project. This can be monetary >>> funding or hardware sponsoring as well as providing a significant >>> contribution to the project. In turn we provide something called a >>> linking exception, which allows you to use XMLVM without putting your >>> project under GPL as well. >>> >>> -- Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> Panayotis Katsaloulis wrote: >>> > Hello ! >>> > >>> > I am thinking, why this tool-chain/library is under the GPL License, >>> > and not something more appropriate for a library, such as LGPL or BSD? >>> > >>> > I have this question since usually such tools have a more relaxed >>> > license, on who is linking on what. >>> > >>> > Thanks >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >>> > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart >>> your >>> > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and >>> stay >>> > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >>> now! >>> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > xmlvm-users mailing list >>> > xml...@li... >>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >>> now! >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xmlvm-users mailing list >>> xml...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >>> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register >> now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> >> > |
|
From: Jacob N. <jac...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 08:29:23
|
2009/10/5 Sascha Haeberling <sa...@xm...> > I absolutely I agree with Kevin on this. If you make a contribution, you > will get a linking exception and you can use XMLVM for your commercial > projects. I don't see how trying to form a different project is of any > benefit to you or to the OpenSource community. > Let me emphasize that we are still quite young and we are still in the > process to form the OpenSource nature of the project. We are open to other > licensing models but so far this seems to be the one that works for most. > However, if we see that a lot of the people in our community have problems > with it, we can think about it. > > Maybe this is the time to ask others on the mailing list, that so far have > been quiet, to see what their opinion is. Any input is welcome. > First, for those who didnt dig it out yet, a pointer to the earlier discussions: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CD37C2F806D14E59922E19D83B7AB49F%40TusharPC&forum_name=xmlvm-users Quick summary, as far as I understand it (please correct me if Im wrong!), in the perspective of a Java developer wanting to port code for project XYZ to iPhone: 1) XMLVM code transform is GPL. 2) XMLVM's supporting libriaries, such as the Java bridge to iPhone classes (java_lang_String.m, java_lang_System.m...) is GPL. 3) By making "a contribution" a company/individual can get XMLVM's supporting libriaries in a LGPL-like version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception) By itself 1) does not in any way make any restrictions on XYZ (project can be close source), but any objective-C code generated by XMLVM will be using XMLVM's supporting libriaries. Anything linked with XMLVM's supporting libriaries MUST therefore be made GPL. Thus 2) requires all ported code to be GPL. For us (an image improvement company - http://carambaimaging.com/ - considering an iPhone port of our closed source application) the situation is that we - before engaging - must somehow estimate costs and time spended. It came as a chok for me this morning when I realized 2) and that there might be a problem (we must keep the source closed - even if I personally disagree). So we will have to rely on 3) - and so, the question is how big "a contribution" is. It would be great if I could give my boss an estimate of what "a contribution" maximally is, so he could count the cost (in these times, he is always counting :-| So here are my proposals: A) Make it more visible that close source projects need to get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception B) Come with a max of what is requred for you to grant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception (BTW: xmlvm.org says "To subscribe, visit our contact page to find a link" but on http://www.xmlvm.org/contact/ there is no link. I know I'm blind but please also link to the mailing list from there :-) Yours, Jacob -- Jacob Nordfalk |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-05 15:16:26
|
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Jacob Nordfalk <jac...@gm...>wrote: > > For us (an image improvement company - http://carambaimaging.com/ - > considering an iPhone port of our closed source application) the situation > is that we - before engaging - must somehow estimate costs and time spended. > > It came as a chok for me this morning when I realized 2) and that there > might be a problem (we must keep the source closed - even if I personally > disagree). So we will have to rely on 3) - and so, the question is how big > "a contribution" is. > > It would be great if I could give my boss an estimate of what "a > contribution" maximally is, so he could count the cost (in these times, he > is always counting :-| > My experience with xmlvm was similar (and I think the problem is widespread). I started experimenting with it thinking that it is under GPL, and like most other GPL projects (think GNU compilers) will not force me to open-source my code just by using it. After investing some time and effort on xmlvm, I realized that it was not the case. I hope XMLVM could somehow make this point clearer at its project page (while it is figuring out its licensing issues) so that people dont get surprised. Inder |
|
From: Gergely K. <ger...@ma...> - 2009-10-07 14:40:43
|
2009/10/7 Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...> > Hi, > > I have a few thoughts (not terribly organized): > - it would be nice to have a commercial entity who owns the code legally. > Right now the CLAs have to be addressed to you (Arno Puder) personally. This > could be a problem for potential contributor businesses. > Ok, I was wrong here. It just needs to be sent to your address, but addressed to XMLVM, which is not a legal entity as far as I know. So I think my point is still valid. Best Regards, Gergely |
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2009-10-07 14:48:25
|
This is actually a good point Gergely, thanks for mentioning it. So far we thought, if we write (C) XMLVM and then mention in a COPYING or LICENSE file who the people are that "own" XMLVM that should be enough. But I might be wrong and would like to figure this out. Do you think the only way to do this properly is to create a legal entity (like a company)? Maybe you have some pointers for us, that would be great. Thanks // Sascha On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...>wrote: > > > 2009/10/7 Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...> > >> Hi, >> >> I have a few thoughts (not terribly organized): >> - it would be nice to have a commercial entity who owns the code legally. >> Right now the CLAs have to be addressed to you (Arno Puder) personally. This >> could be a problem for potential contributor businesses. >> > Ok, I was wrong here. It just needs to be sent to your address, but > addressed to XMLVM, which is not a legal entity as far as I know. So I think > my point is still valid. > > Best Regards, > Gergely > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Gergely K. <ger...@ma...> - 2009-10-07 23:35:00
|
Hi, 2009/10/7 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> > > well, Bjoern, as a quick note to your comment: you can never prevent > someone making money with your contribution to an Open Source project. > This is nothing unique to a dual licensing strategy. Redhat makes a lot > of money using other's peoples work. Of course they provide a service on > top of the packaging. That would be the same for us. I don't think > anyone would just give money to the core team without asking for > something in return (and by that I mean more than the linking > exception). By giving you a linking exception for your contribution, you > would be given the same chance of using XMLVM for your commercial ventures. > > With one important difference: they only have the source under the GPL with linking exception. And from the earlier discussion it seems that the linking exception is not transferrable to others. (Transferrability would effectively defeat its purpose.) At the same time the XMLVM team is able to relicense the whole package under a commercial license. I am not saying that this is a problem, it is simply a property of a GPL/commercial project. Best Regards, Gergely |
|
From: Inderjeet S. <ind...@gm...> - 2009-10-08 04:13:25
|
Hi Arno, I hope the XMLVM team is maintaining copyrights appropriately to preserve their ability to grant linking exception or offer XMLVM under dual license. When you are accepting external contributions, are you asking them to assign copyrights to you as well (A fairly standard practice with company sponsored open-source projects). Inder On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...>wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/10/7 Arno Puder <ar...@pu...> > >> >> well, Bjoern, as a quick note to your comment: you can never prevent >> someone making money with your contribution to an Open Source project. >> This is nothing unique to a dual licensing strategy. Redhat makes a lot >> of money using other's peoples work. Of course they provide a service on >> top of the packaging. That would be the same for us. I don't think >> anyone would just give money to the core team without asking for >> something in return (and by that I mean more than the linking >> exception). By giving you a linking exception for your contribution, you >> would be given the same chance of using XMLVM for your commercial >> ventures. >> >> With one important difference: they only have the source under the GPL > with linking exception. And from the earlier discussion it seems that the > linking exception is not transferrable to others. (Transferrability would > effectively defeat its purpose.) > > At the same time the XMLVM team is able to relicense the whole package > under a commercial license. > > I am not saying that this is a problem, it is simply a property of a > GPL/commercial project. > > Best Regards, > Gergely > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
|
From: Arno P. <ar...@pu...> - 2009-10-08 08:50:31
|
yes, we do. We only accept a patch if the developer has signed a so-called Contributor License Agreement (CLA): http://www.xmlvm.org/contribute/cla.php Note that the text of our CLA is a verbatim copy of Apache's CLA. Many other Open Source projects use the same CLA, so no surprises here. Arno Inderjeet Singh wrote: > Hi Arno, > > I hope the XMLVM team is maintaining copyrights appropriately to > preserve their ability to grant linking exception or offer XMLVM under > dual license. When you are accepting external contributions, are you > asking them to assign copyrights to you as well (A fairly standard > practice with company sponsored open-source projects). > > Inder > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma... > <mailto:ger...@ma...>> wrote: > > Hi, > > 2009/10/7 Arno Puder <ar...@pu... <mailto:ar...@pu...>> > > > well, Bjoern, as a quick note to your comment: you can never prevent > someone making money with your contribution to an Open Source > project. > This is nothing unique to a dual licensing strategy. Redhat > makes a lot > of money using other's peoples work. Of course they provide a > service on > top of the packaging. That would be the same for us. I don't think > anyone would just give money to the core team without asking for > something in return (and by that I mean more than the linking > exception). By giving you a linking exception for your > contribution, you > would be given the same chance of using XMLVM for your > commercial ventures. > > With one important difference: they only have the source under the > GPL with linking exception. And from the earlier discussion it seems > that the linking exception is not transferrable to others. > (Transferrability would effectively defeat its purpose.) > > At the same time the XMLVM team is able to relicense the whole > package under a commercial license. > > I am not saying that this is a problem, it is simply a property of a > GPL/commercial project. > > Best Regards, > Gergely > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and > stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > <mailto:xml...@li...> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users |
|
From: Gergely K. <ger...@ma...> - 2009-10-09 10:26:15
|
Hi, I am not a lawyer (only my wife is). However, I think that you need some kind of legal entity called XMLVM so that the copyright laws can work. It may also depend on the country as well, but I think that forming some kind of legal entity is the right way to go. One possibility to avoid that is to use an already existing umbrella organization like Apache Foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center ( http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/) However, this method would probably have an impact on the potential future commercialization of the project. Best Regards, Gergely 2009/10/7 Sascha Haeberling <sa...@xm...> > This is actually a good point Gergely, thanks for mentioning it. So far we > thought, if we write (C) XMLVM and then mention in a COPYING or LICENSE file > who the people are that "own" XMLVM that should be enough. But I might be > wrong and would like to figure this out. Do you think the only way to do > this properly is to create a legal entity (like a company)? > Maybe you have some pointers for us, that would be great. > > Thanks > // Sascha > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...>wrote: > >> >> >> 2009/10/7 Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a few thoughts (not terribly organized): >>> - it would be nice to have a commercial entity who owns the code legally. >>> Right now the CLAs have to be addressed to you (Arno Puder) personally. This >>> could be a problem for potential contributor businesses. >>> >> Ok, I was wrong here. It just needs to be sent to your address, but >> addressed to XMLVM, which is not a legal entity as far as I know. So I think >> my point is still valid. >> >> Best Regards, >> Gergely >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA >> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference >> _______________________________________________ >> xmlvm-users mailing list >> xml...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >> >> > |
|
From: Sascha H. <sa...@xm...> - 2009-10-09 12:29:42
|
Thank you for your input/ I think the documentation page is the right place to put it, however we are currently planning a remake of the documentations page, to page things easier to find. // Sascha On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...>wrote: > Hi, > > I am not a lawyer (only my wife is). However, I think that you need some > kind of legal entity called XMLVM so that the copyright laws can work. It > may also depend on the country as well, but I think that forming some kind > of legal entity is the right way to go. > > One possibility to avoid that is to use an already existing umbrella > organization like Apache Foundation or the Software Freedom Law Center ( > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/) > However, this method would probably have an impact on the potential future > commercialization of the project. > > Best Regards, > Gergely > > 2009/10/7 Sascha Haeberling <sa...@xm...> > > This is actually a good point Gergely, thanks for mentioning it. So far we >> thought, if we write (C) XMLVM and then mention in a COPYING or LICENSE file >> who the people are that "own" XMLVM that should be enough. But I might be >> wrong and would like to figure this out. Do you think the only way to do >> this properly is to create a legal entity (like a company)? >> Maybe you have some pointers for us, that would be great. >> >> Thanks >> // Sascha >> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2009/10/7 Gergely Kis <ger...@ma...> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have a few thoughts (not terribly organized): >>>> - it would be nice to have a commercial entity who owns the code >>>> legally. Right now the CLAs have to be addressed to you (Arno Puder) >>>> personally. This could be a problem for potential contributor businesses. >>>> >>> Ok, I was wrong here. It just needs to be sent to your address, but >>> addressed to XMLVM, which is not a legal entity as far as I know. So I think >>> my point is still valid. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Gergely >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA >>> is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your >>> developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay >>> ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xmlvm-users mailing list >>> xml...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users >>> >>> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA > is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your > developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay > ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference > _______________________________________________ > xmlvm-users mailing list > xml...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlvm-users > > |
×
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