Re: Project Wonder Licensing
Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- Subject: Re: Project Wonder Licensing
- From: Jesse Tayler <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:46:28 -0400
Netstruxr was a dot-com - the start of WOnder was to opensource our codebase and frameworks to basically save the code because the company was doomed.
That was like, ten years ago now -
On May 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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