This is the mail archive of the
kawa@sourceware.org
mailing list for the Kawa project.
Re: Kawa (re-)licensing
- From: Jim White <jim at pagesmiths dot com>
- To: kawa at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:59:36 -0800
- Subject: Re: Kawa (re-)licensing
- References: <43704CF1.4060507@bothner.com>
Per Bothner wrote:
I'm not sure what the best thing for Kawa is. Comments?
I firmly believe that LGPL is all that is needed.
People who think that your "unmodified" exception is something they need
(as Gustavo Muñoz wrote) are simply uninformed because LGPL doesn't
impose any burden on them (other than making the Kawa sources they use
available, which since they're unmodified they don't need to do anything
more than provide a link to the Kawa release they use).
That LGPL is somehow a problem for commercial systems is a
(unfortunately widespread) myth. The myth is perpetuated by a lot of
FUD and laziness. While there are many examples I could provide as
proof that LGPL is completely compatible with commercial, paid-for,
binary-only products, let me cite one that should sufficient: Mac OS X.
It is *very* commercial, binary-only (heck, apparently they even plan
to use patented Apple-only hardware locking for the Intel version), and
utterly dependent on, and includes, GCC, the quintessential GPL tool.
Now in the case of GCC it is segregated into GPL and LGPL parts, which
is not practical for Kawa (and some say for all Java but I believe that
is more FUD). LGPL however provides all the flexibilty anybody who
wants to distribute binary-only needs.
I would like to see you drop your custom license and just use LGPL. I
don't know whether it would lead more developers to contribute to Kawa,
but I agree that the current scheme is something of an impediment.
The MIT-style idea is not good at all. MIT/X11, Apache, and BSD
licenses are all essentially the same and they only have one significant
difference vs LGPL: they all allow people to make derivative works and
are *not* required to redistribute the source for the modifications.
Clearly not what you are after AFAIK. GNU.org even agrees that Apache
2.0 is almost compatible with GPL, the sticking point being that they
handle patents differently.
Jim White