Re: Project Wonder Licensing
Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- Subject: Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- From: Ramsey Gurley <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 17:14:50 -0700
I assume ERExtensions/Documentation/LICENSE.NPL does... so what about NPL has this audit deemed offensive?
Ramsey
On May 9, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> Those acknowledgements are required if you are using some types of open source licenses like LGPL. Those do not constitute proper licensing for project wonder
>
> Dov Rosenberg
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 6:14 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 9, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Just having gone thru an extensive software audit of all of the third party licensing that our company uses (including WebObjects and Project Wonder among a zillion other things). I would like to propose that Project Wonder adopt a more consistent license for the code base. The best licenses for open source products to use so that commercial products can utilize those components are Apache 2.0, BSD, and MIT. It would be best to include the license file in the download for binary and source for WOProject and Project Wonder. Right now I think these items are under an old NetStruxr license thru objectstyle. It was very difficult to find the license files for Project Wonder and WOProject
>>>
>>> Any component licensed under GPL, LGPL 3.0, EPL, CPL were poison to us and we had to remove them. LGPL v2.1 components sucked less and we were allowed to keep them as long as we didn't modify them in any way.
>>>
>>> Dov Rosenberg
>>
>> http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WONDER/Acknowledgements
>>
>> Ramsey
>>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden