Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
Locked
Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
 
|
Dear Swazooers,
During talking about licensing Swazoo under MIT, Ken Treis proposed that Swazoo could be relicensed as MIT while Bruce develops Hyper under LGPL. I had expected that we will succeed to merge back Swazoo and Hyper, but as you read recently this now seems impossible. Regrettably, it seems that me and Bruce are not on the line personally and this rift is just widening. I therefore think it will be better for the community if we return to Ken's proposal: let the Hyper be LGLP while Swazoo is licensed under MIT. That way anyone will have a choice where to contribute in the future. Bruce will continue building Hyper on the original Swazoo code. Swazoo development will continue (including the part of Bruce's code which actually originates from before he announced the Hyper fork). With this proposal, we actually solved the problem immediately. Bruce, I appeal to you personally to go along with this proposal as a pragmatic resolution of our differences which will allow us to get on with what we really want to do: write great software. Best regards Janko ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
You are asking me to license my code as both a BSD-like and a
share-alike license at the same time. Is that correct? -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote:
> You are asking me to license my code as both a BSD-like and a > share-alike license at the same time. > > Is that correct? We can say that a copy of code from your branch which was merged to main line I'm asking you to be licensed as MIT, while your branch, which later become Hyper, stays LGPL. Your merged code includes (from my memory) a whole request parsing framework, SwazooTask idea and code, single threaded/multithreaded and some other things. Best regards Janko ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
2008/7/10 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>:
> Bruce Badger wrote: >> You are asking me to license my code as both a BSD-like and a >> share-alike license at the same time. > We can say that a copy of code from your branch which was merged to main > line I'm asking you to be licensed as MIT, while your branch, which > later become Hyper, stays LGPL. This would create the situation where some of my written works (e.g. Smalltalk methods) would be licensed under both the BSD-like MIT license and the share-alike LGPL at the same time. Is that right? I want to be really sure I understand what you are suggesting. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote:
> 2008/7/10 Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]>: >> Bruce Badger wrote: >>> You are asking me to license my code as both a BSD-like and a >>> share-alike license at the same time. > >> We can say that a copy of code from your branch which was merged to main >> line I'm asking you to be licensed as MIT, while your branch, which >> later become Hyper, stays LGPL. > > This would create the situation where some of my written works (e.g. > Smalltalk methods) would be licensed under both the BSD-like MIT > license and the share-alike LGPL at the same time. > > Is that right? I want to be really sure I understand what you are suggesting. I think yes. Most of methods and classes are actually just copied from your branch. Probably everything in Swazoo-Headers while things in Swazoo-Messages and Swazoo-HTTP are merged in more traditional sense. JAnko ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a
BSD-like license would render the LGPL meaningless for those works. Isn't that right? -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Badger <[hidden email]> writes:
Bruce> It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a Bruce> BSD-like license would render the LGPL meaningless for those works. Bruce> Isn't that right? Unless the BSD-like license is proven unenforceable in court. The LGPL would then still apply. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
Bruce Badger wrote:
> It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a > BSD-like license would render the LGPL meaningless for those works. > > Isn't that right? There are already two branches so I don't see why LGPL would be meaningless in Hyper branch. Also there are many examples where projects split in two licenses and it doesn't seem that this would be a problem. Also, a clear origin of changes can be determined in both cases, so the origin of some code change can be easily determined to come from MIT branch or LGPL one. Again protection of rights of contributors to both branches is preserved. But actual open question is only your code, merged into Swazoo branch. For this one we asked you to dual license, then it goes forward in two paths, as LGPL in Hyper and as MIT in Swazoo. Again, there are examples from other projects out there, which worked well. All depends just of the good will of contributors to agree. And I really hope we will agree in our case too. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
On 22/07/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Bruce Badger wrote: > > > It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a > > BSD-like license would render the LGPL meaningless for those works. > > > > Isn't that right? > > > There are already two branches so I don't see why LGPL would be > meaningless in Hyper branch. Sorry, I don't get this. Take one method that is in Hyper and imagine that this method is made available under both the LGPL and a BSD-like license. In what way is the LGPL then enforcible for that method? I think the LGPL would be meaningless in this case. Do you disagree? If so, could you please explain. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
Bruce Badger wrote: > On 22/07/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Bruce Badger wrote: >> >> > It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a >> > BSD-like license would render the LGPL meaningless for those works. >> > >> > Isn't that right? >> >> >> There are already two branches so I don't see why LGPL would be >> meaningless in Hyper branch. > > Sorry, I don't get this. Take one method that is in Hyper and imagine > that this method is made available under both the LGPL and a BSD-like > license. In what way is the LGPL then enforcible for that method? > > I think the LGPL would be meaningless in this case. Do you disagree? > If so, could you please explain. Bruce,please go read all others who did that before and obviously in way which keeps the water. I don't have a time to do that. For me is convincable enough that others did it and survive. Best regards JAnko ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
On 22/07/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I think the LGPL would be meaningless in this case. Do you disagree? > > If so, could you please explain. > > Bruce,please go read all others ... :-) Well, you made the assertion which appears to contradict what I have read. I would be interested in hearing your explanation of why the key share-and-share-alike element of the LGPL does not become meaningless if a method were also licensed under a BSD-like license. -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
Bruce,
You know well that because others are for MIT, we will go with MIT. We just invited you to stay with us with the code you contribute and it is currently in Swazoo branch. That's all what we are asking you. And I don't have time to open all that debate all over again. So please, stay on the starting question and try to answer it as soon as possible. Best regards Janko Bruce Badger wrote: > On 22/07/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > I think the LGPL would be meaningless in this case. Do you disagree? >> > If so, could you please explain. >> >> Bruce,please go read all others ... > > :-) > > Well, you made the assertion which appears to contradict what I have > read. I would be interested in hearing your explanation of why the > key share-and-share-alike element of the LGPL does not become > meaningless if a method were also licensed under a BSD-like license. > -- Janko Mivšek Svetovalec za informatiko Eranova d.o.o. Ljubljana, Slovenija www.eranova.si tel: 01 514 22 55 faks: 01 514 22 56 gsm: 031 674 565 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
On 22/07/2008, Janko Mivšek <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So please, stay > on the starting question and try to answer it as soon as possible. So you demand a clear answer from me, but I'm not allowed to understand what I'm agreeing to? -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
In reply to this post by Bruce Badger
I think "meaningless" is an excessively strong
term. If the code never changes from that point forward, then yes, it
would be meaningless because the "share alike" aspects of the
license could be avoided by anyone who didn't want to share. However, a
more likely scenario is that the versions under each license continue to
be developed and diverge. At that point the LGPL branch gets the slightly
better end of it because it can harvest improvements made to the
BSD-licensed branch, but not the reverse. So dual licensing of that form
effectively resets the license at the time it's done, and the significant
difference is only with respect to future development on the two
branches.
At 05:57 PM 7/21/2008, Bruce Badger wrote: It seems to me that licensing a given work under both the LGPL and a --
Alan Knight [|], Engineering Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
It seems that the proposal being led by Janko would in
practice be to Bruce's advantage. Swazoo is developed under MIT with
some of Bruce's code in it and Swazoo-Hype (with some of Janko et al's
code in it) is developed under LGPL. Swazoo-Hyper benefits from
Swazoo's development, but not vice versa.
Looks like a slam dunk to me. Alan Knight wrote: I think "meaningless" is an excessively strong term. If the code never changes from that point forward, then yes, it would be meaningless because the "share alike" aspects of the license could be avoided by anyone who didn't want to share. However, a more likely scenario is that the versions under each license continue to be developed and diverge. At that point the LGPL branch gets the slightly better end of it because it can harvest improvements made to the BSD-licensed branch, but not the reverse. So dual licensing of that form effectively resets the license at the time it's done, and the significant difference is only with respect to future development on the two branches. --
Nicholas
J Moore ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
In reply to this post by Alan Knight-2
On 22/07/2008, Alan Knight <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think "meaningless" is an excessively strong term. OK then, mostly meaningless. :-) As you note, on the day of the dual licensing the LGPL would be meaningless for all dual licensed code, except perhaps symbolically - in particular, share-alike would be lost for all that code. Looking into the future, if the code bases don't significantly diverge then the day 1 situation persists and the LGPL remains mostly meaningless. If the code base does diverge then it's more likely that ideas will flow between the two code bases rather than unaltered pieces of code, if anything. In between I see confusion and stress. Was this bit of code included in the dual licensing or not? Oh, look, lets also dual license this code too since all the other code is dual licensed etc etc etc So, to use Nicholas' words: it seems like a slam-dunk. But not the way Nicholas meant. Best regards, Bruce -- Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills http://www.openskills.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
Re: Swazoo to MIT, Hyper stays LGPL?
|
|
Given 1) a proposal, supported by the majority, to license Swazoo under MIT and 2) Bruce's clear and strongly expressed fears of the follow-on from dual licensing, I suggest that the community faces up to the consequence, which is a parting of the ways. From earlier posts I understand that this would mean removing some of Bruce's code from Swazoo and then licensing Swazoo under MIT. Since Janko and the other originators seem to be happy for Hyper to continue based on their original LGPLed work there would be no need for Hyper to change. Does this seem like a reasonable summary? Are there any other realistic options? Nicholas Bruce Badger wrote: On 22/07/2008, Alan Knight [hidden email] wrote: --
Nicholas
J Moore ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Swazoo-devel mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/swazoo-devel |
«
Return to Swazoo
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |