Subject: Re: Framework Licensing for Developer Flexibility
From: "Jacobus Vosloo" <jpvosloo@webmail.co.za>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:22:45 +0200

Have you had a look at the Lucent Public License?  
Does anyone know wether the Lucent license is GNU
compatible?

The LGPL/SISSL combination seems good, but is there no
single license that can achieve the same.

PS. Anyone know of a list of Opensource licenses that are
themselves opensource?

Regards

Jacobus Vosloo
Application Integrator for .Net
Invision - DaimlerChrysler - East-London - South Africa

Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender, except where stated otherwise.
Emails can contain viruses; make sure your system is
protected before opening any attached files. 

Randy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------	
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
cc: 
Subject: Framework Licensing for Developer Flexibility

Our company has been using a commercial development
environment that
provides the infrastructure for developing interactive web
applications.
Over several years, we have developed an object-oriented
framework that can
be used in conjunction with the commercial product, and
greatly enhances
developers' ability to create web applications.

In lieu of attempting to market this framework
commercially, we are
seriously considering making it available as open source. I
have been
researching for the right license to use, should we decide
to do this. Our
goals are:

a) Make the framework itself available to other developers.
b) Encourage contributions to the framework by other
developers.
c) (Key) Allow developers (including us) to create web
applications that use
the framework, but where the final applications can be
*either* open source
*or* proprietary.

We have no experience with creating software licenses of
any type, and thus
are looking for advice. Based on our review of open source
information we
have found, our preliminary conclusions are:

1. Clearly the GPL is out for several reasons.
2. The LGPL looks closer to what we want, but it is very
lengthy compared to
other open source licenses, and it uses technical terms
like "linking" and
"executables" that strike me as too specific. (Ex: If you
use "late
binding", can you avoid license terms that refer to
"linking"?)
3. The Modfied BSD and/or MIT license appear to be the
closest to what we
are looking for. 

Thanks in advance for any advice,

-- Randy

--
license-discuss archive is at
http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3