I think it is a balance. There is a certain amount of FUD around GPL and copyleft and rather than taking the time to understand the implications of the classpath exception, some people could be dissuaded from using the framework. However, my feeling is that anyone using the framework will be very likely to continue to do so, so I doubt there is much of a downside.
I'm not convinced there's a lot of GPL'd code you'll be able to leverage in the CF world that fits into the framework, so I'm not sure there will be much of an upside, and given the lack of commercial motivation, I'm assuming a dual-licensing approach isn't being envisioned (probably worth clarifying that - some people might be less willing to contribute code if they knew of plans to have a more permissive commercial license, but knowing Matt's views on OSS I have a feeling that's not exactly the motivation :-) ). My feeling is that on balance this won't really have an impact either way and it strikes me as more of a philosophical choice than anything else. I think the biggest impact of the change will be a discussion which will drive a greater awareness in the CF community of the various OSS licenses, their differences and motivations. If that is all it accomplishes, I think it's still a worthwhile undertaking. Best Wishes, Peter On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Matthew Woodward wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:24:29 -0400, Dave Ross <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Going to a copyleft license means more thought process involved on >> the > part >> of developers and organizations in how the framework is used >> (although > the >> majority of use will comply with the GPL v3). > > Thanks Dave--curious specifically what you mean here. With the > classpath > exception it seems to me the only additional thought process in > terms of > how they use it would be if Mach-II is being modified; otherwise it > shouldn't matter to anyone. > >> The only positive is the ability to incorporate other GPL-licensed >> code >> into >> the framework, but I just see that as very unlikely at this time. > > But you never know. We don't have anything specific in mind at this > point, > however. > > And I don't see that as the only positive by any means. Admittedly > part of > this decision is a philosophical one, and it's certainly not being > made > because we're scared someone is going to fork Mach-II. After > discussing > things we simply think this license makes more sense for this type of > project, and at least from our perspective the downsides are non- > existent > in terms of how Mach-II can be used. > > Also given the features we have planned for 1.9 and 2.0 we'd like to > better > foster a community of contributions for add-ons (for lack of a > better term > at this point), and we feel a GPL-style license is a better way to > allow > that to happen. > > All this being said, we absolutely want to hear from users to whom > this > will have an impact that we're just not seeing at this point, so if > there's > a specific case we're perhaps not considering, please let us know. > > Thanks for the feedback--much appreciated. > -- > Matthew Woodward > [email protected] > http://mpwoodward.posterous.com > identi.ca/Twitter: @mpwoodward > > Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, > PowerPoint, > etc. as attachments. > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Mach-II for CFML list. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mach-ii-for-coldfusion?hl=en SVN: http://greatbiztoolsllc.svn.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ Wiki / Documentation / Tickets: http://greatbiztoolsllc.trac.cvsdude.com/mach-ii/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
