On 9/27/07, Linus Tolke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How is this protection expressed? I don't understand the difference in this > respect. Is this explained somewhere?
It's a little bit hard to explain when I can't tell what you don't understand. Perhaps if we look at the relevant passages in isolation you can let us know what you find confusing. Our copyright/license: IN NO EVENT SHALL THE // UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, // SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, // ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF // THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF // SUCH DAMAGE. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY // WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF // MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE // PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF // CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, // UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. Revised BSD license (<copyright holder> == "The ArgoUML Team") : IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY * DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES * (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND * ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS * SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > > What we've seen in practice is that commercial companies fork the ArgoUML > > source and provide no benefit back to the community in return. A much > > better scenario would be one in which both commercial and non-commercial > > parties contribute to enhance a public commons that they can both benefit > > from rather than ending up with stale dead-end forks. A license like the > > EPL or MPL which required bug fixes to be contributed would be one way to > > achieve this. > > The question is, as I wrote before in this thread: would this work? Will it > benefit the development of ArgoUML? There's really no way of knowing, is there? We do know however that the current approach hasn't worked. Do you have an alternate proposal for a way to improve the commercial collaboration around ArgoUML? Tom
