Yeah,
thats what I meant to say with the choosing of licenses, I didn't mean that one
of those would be for commercial usage.
Maarten
-Original Message-
From: Geert Bevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Maarten Stolte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:41:12 +0200
Subject: Re: [Rife-
> is it possible for RIFE to be dual licensed? Some projects (qt) are
> dual licensed, for example for commercial and non-commercial useage.
> Might it be possible to just dual license and say 'choose one of
> these 2 licenses and adhere to them', or would it cause more
> confusion maybe?
Those pr
Hi,
Op 25-aug-2005, om 22:17 heeft Geert Bevin het volgende geschreven:
BSD and Apache don't do what I want, they don't require changes or
derivates to be recontributed as source under the same license.
GPL is not usable for a library.
LGPL generates *a lot* of problems. Most Java developer
I blogged about it here:
http://rifers.org/blogs/gbevin/2005/8/25/lgpl_for_java_apache_blessing
On 8/25/05, Geert Bevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BSD and Apache don't do what I want, they don't require changes or
> derivates to be recontributed as source under the same license.
>
> GPL is not
BSD and Apache don't do what I want, they don't require changes or
derivates to be recontributed as source under the same license.
GPL is not usable for a library.
LGPL generates *a lot* of problems. Most Java developers shun it since
there are many conflicting interpretations. I've been followin
Even without Sun I think using new or nonstandard licenses is not a
good idea especially for a project such as RIFE which does not have
much publicity. I think BSD, Apache, or GPL are the only choices, if
I were making the decision.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:
You have
You have scroll halfway down http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html to read
something about Sun, and it just says they are the initial license
steward.
On 8/25/05, Keith Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MPL doesn't have much visibility. I am not familiar with it. I know
> (L)GPL and BSD, and basically
MPL doesn't have much visibility. I am not familiar with it. I know
(L)GPL and BSD, and basically nothing else, myself. Anyway, people
are against Sun. I think people will visit the web page, see "Sun
license," and close the tab.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:
The things
The things I read about it are quite good. It's an improved Mozilla
license. People aren't against MPL, aren't they?
On 8/25/05, Keith Lea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think going with a Sun license is going to repel many more people
> than LGPL. A lot of open source fanatics hate Sun's licensi
I think going with a Sun license is going to repel many more people
than LGPL. A lot of open source fanatics hate Sun's licensing and I
think many people (maybe myself included) wouldn't take a second look
at a project under a Sun license.
On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:43 PM, Geert Bevin wrote:
H
The current state of the javadocs is available at:
http://rifers.org/docs/api/
Please comment if you find inconsistancies or contribute changes or
additions if you feel iike it.
Thanks!
Geert
--
Geert Bevin Uwyn bvba
"Use what you need" Avenue de Scailmont 3
Hi again,
I've scheduled RIFE 1.0 to be released late next Monday.
I've uploaded distribution snapshots of the current repository, you
can download them here:
http://rifers.org/downloads/rife/
Please test them out and report any problems you find.
The draft of the release notes is available fro
Hello everyone,
I've gotten quite some remarks about LGPL lately since it's unclear in
the Java world and is shunned by Apache and many commercial
organisations. I've been recommended to look at CDDL since it was
written for the same situation as RIFE. Information about CDDL can be
found here:
htt
13 matches
Mail list logo
