Steven Noels wrote:
We kindly ask you to consider these issues and get back to us at your convenience. The Cocoon PMC list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is private to PMC members only, if you would like to make a public comment feel free to do that on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've CC'd this to the list above; I'd appreciate it if any discussion would be CC'd back to me as well. Please read the entire message before commenting; it may start out sounding a bit negative, but in the end, I think you get what you want. :)
let me first start with thanking you for a wonderful set of tools, which we have eagerly been using over the years.
I'm glad to know it was useful.
Cocoon has been using Jisp for quite some time, and it served us well as a migration from a filesystem based cache store. We have been hitting some Jisp bugs lately, which made us looking forward to migrate to the upcoming 3.0 version.
Older versions of Jisp did, indeed, have some problems; initially, Jisp was an algorithmic demonstration for one of my books, and it was not intended for "real world use".
Given the number of people who have used Jisp, I decided to refactor the package in a more professional form. Thus, Jisp 3.0, which is based on the code I use in commercial products.
Quite to our surprise however, we just found out that Jisp 3 now comes with the MySQL-like combo-license: GPL + commercial licensing possibility.
Of course, we cannot and will not have any say into which license you should use for your products, since it's your blood and tears that went into it. As open source developers however, we have some considerations about licenses which we'd like to confront you with.
I appreciate your talking to me about this. Please indulge me in a bit of background story, so you understand why I changed licenses.
I'm not a twenty-something college student who can afford to hack free software for free; I am an independent business man and forty-something father of three. My first "free" products appeared back in the 1980s, and I've written several programming books, so I'm a long-time believer in sharing code with the community. A society can not progress if knowledge is kept secret.
As such, I originally released Jisp under a libpng-style license.
In the last year or so, I've been hounded by people who "demand" support for Jisp -- including those who use Jisp via Apache. While I politely inform them that my time isn't free, the frequency of such requests is increasing. When I request some form of renumeration for providing support, they act as if I've suggested concourse with a devil.
My frustration lies with people who use and praise Jisp without any feeling of obligation to me, other than a hearty handshake (at best). My frustration grows when I know that people are profiting from my code, without so much as an acknowledgement.
I am not a greedy soul, and excess wealth is not one of my goals in life; however, I have three daughters, a wife, and a managerie of critters that need my financial support. These are dark economic times in our industry; survival for an independent consultant (like me) is tenuous even in the best of times.
For me, the change in license (to the GPL) is an attempt to find equity in people's use of my code. "Fairness" is, of course, a matter of perception. In my case, I have received nothing from the Apache project beyond the "hearty handshake" level. It's not that I don't want Apache to use Jisp -- it's that I know people are paid to work on Apache, and that many people make money selling Apache support and services.
It seems to me that those who find value in my creation should also be willing to reward me for my contribution.
The ASF policy is not to use, link or distribute software (components) which use the (L)GPL license, since these licenses prohibit the redistribution of ASF software linking, using or embedding such dependencies along the same terms as the Apache Software License (1 or 2) allows.
I am not a fan of Mr. Stallman's religion; however, his license does have the weight of support behind it at this point, and using GPL solves a number of problems I've had in being compatible with some other "free" projects.
With the new ASL, it is allowed that ASF software is (re)packaged as a new open source project which is distributed under the GPL. Adding onto that, we regard the new ASL as being compatible with the GPL, while the FSF decided the contrary, without tangible reason: a matter of policy rather than legal differences, so it seems. So we have a bit of an issue with the GPL, to put it frankly.
Ah, more of Mr. Stallman's pedantry -- one of the reasons I resisted the GPL for many years.
The license change of Jisp is most likely going to force us to replace Jisp by some other dbm. Other ASF projects which use Jisp will be forced to do the same. This is bad since we, apart from some small issues, were quite happy with Jisp and had no technical reason to move away. And since we are a volunteer organization, things we are forced to do are always much harder than things we like to work on - I'm sure you understand that.
As I've said, I'm not a greedy person; I'm willing tio resolve the issue by giving Apache a unique license that eliminates the contention. Let me know what your requirements are; I can allow Apache to continue using Jisp under the libpng-style license, for example.
Perhaps Apache's developers could consider ways in which you could respond in kind? If not in money, then perhaps in other ways.
In particular, it needs to be made very clear to Apache's users that they can not expect (or demand) free support for Jisp from me. I simply can't afford it.
Adding onto that, we saw ample reference being made on http://www.coyotegulch.com/jisp/index.html to the Apache project. It's a bit awkward to see us being used as a reference "customer" case, while at the same time being made impossible to use your library.
I wouldn't say "ample reference"; a couple of links is about all. It's not like I make any claim to being part of the Apache project, nor have I received a single commercial client via my tangental association with Apache. The main reason I list Apache by name is that my commercial applications of Jisp are covered by various non-disclosure agreements; it's nice to associate with a name that people recognize. If you strenuously object, I'll be more than happy to remove the association.
I think we can work this out to everyone's satisfaction.
Thanks for your measured response.
As I understand it, the problem presented with the new 3.0 licensing revolves around the issue of linking and derivative works with the GPL. You've offered very kindly to find a mutually beneficial arrangement in the licensing - at first glance it looks as if such a suggestion would grant Apache itself the right to use, but if that could force our end-users into a license conflict if we wouldn't be able to enter into such an arrangement. We need to preserve the right of our end users to profit from our software with no strings attached except as noted in the Apache license. Perhaps some OEM-type license could be offered which limits use of Jisp within the Apache product in its bundled form. IANAL, and I don't even pretend to understand all the issues involved and whether my suggestion satisfies the complex issues at hand. If that sounds like what you were thinking, we could bring up the idea on apache's licensing mail list.
Geoff
