Re: Project Wonder Licensing
Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- Subject: Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- From: Dov Rosenberg <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 10:41:50 -0700
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- Thread-topic: Project Wonder Licensing
That is basically a BSD license which is good. Who is NetStruxr? There is
no other reference to that group anywhere else I could find. It appears to
be a group that no longer exists. There should be a license at the top
level of the source tree, this implies that the license covers the entire
code base. The way it looks now - only ERDirectToWeb, ERExtensions, and
WOOgnl have a LICENSE.NPL file. The rest of the code is not explicitly
licensed.
If there are other licensed components in the subprojects - those should
be clearly licensed as well. Judging by the list of 3rd party
acknowledgements it might make sense to have a separate license
file/folder per project. Most of the open source licenses require some
sort of acknowledgement. Apple did a great job on the licensing of the
JavaXML framework (even though the framework itself is of questionable
value) - there is a license folder in the WebServerResources/Java folder
that contains all of the required 3rd party acknowledgements. In the main
xcode license there is a notice of the inclusion of the various third
party licenses.
The only thing about the Xcode license that caused us a little bit of
grief was the clause under the WebObjects section that stated that we had
to do all of our WO development on Apple branded machines. This isnt a
problem for our group, but it raised the eyebrows of the lawyers (who all
used PCs of course).
Dov Rosenberg
On 5/9/11 8:14 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <email@hidden> wrote:
>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