Oliver Welter wrote:
I would prefer GPL too, but should than keep in mind that we need a base for commercial companies to make their business - I think this can be special interfaces or batch-systems. But in this case they should be a way for them to sell the extensions without the need to use our code...
Yes, this is the big difference between the actual license and the GPL. The ASL 2 (from Apache) is more like our license but much better fine tuned. I think the major reason for this fine tuning is the powerful organizational backend of the Apache Foundation.
So a new licensing could be the Apache way too. 1. A copyright in each file with the short license 2. A file LICENSE 3. A file NOTICE with references to OpenSSL for example 4. A file credits (linux) or thanks (openca) for the contributorsThe problem is that we have no Apache Foundation in the background which results in the query who can enforce the license if the copyright is from OpenCA.
So perhaps we should construct the following thing in the foundation documents:
1. Every contributor add it's own copyright to the affected files.2. The contributor accepts that the license can be changed according to the actual decision process defined in the foundation documents.
The solution is not perfect but it gives every contributor the power to enforce the license and it allows later license updates.
BTW I think we have two important things here, one is the license and one is the enforcement and update of the license.
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
