Hi Oli,
The other question for me is, should we perhaps change the license to the GPL ?If I understand the GPL stuff correctly:LGPL means, someone can take OpenCA Code, create some enhancements around and sell itGPL means, every modification you make to the code must go back to the project.
This is my idea of GPL too.
I think this is somewhat related to the question of taking money from EU fundings - if you choose GPL we might offer a "commercial" license for those who want to incorporate OpenCA in there own projects...
I do not like dual licensing and I'm not a fan of such a commercial license too. Many developers contributed to the project and I don't think that they want that the project earns money from contributed code.
It is a more general question, do we want that commercial companies can change OpenCA and sell the changes without giving them back to the project. If we do not like this then GPL is ok, otherwise BSD is the right choice.
If we use the GPL then there can be companies which change the code for their internal use. If we use GPL then it is possible too that we creates interfaces (for servers or modules) which can be used by proprietary software. So customization is still possible. Only changing and selling without giving back is forbidden.
Perhaps Max can/should give a comment to this too. Michael -- _______________________________________________________________ Michael Bell Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin Tel.: +49 (0)30-2093 2482 ZE Computer- und Medienservice Fax: +49 (0)30-2093 2704 Unter den Linden 6 [EMAIL PROTECTED] D-10099 Berlin _______________________________________________________________
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
