It might not be proper to use the name "Solr", because it is really
"Apache Solr". At a minimum, it is misleading to use an Apache project
name on GPL'ed code.
I agree that changing to GPL is a bad idea. I've worked at eight or
nine companies since the GPL was created, and GPL'ed code was
forbidden at every one of them. GPL is where code goes to die.
wunder
On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:00 AM, Matthias Epheser wrote:
Grant Ingersoll schrieb:
Moving to GPL doesn't seem like a good solution to me, but I don't
know what else to propose. Why don't we just hold it from this
release, but keep it in trunk and encourage the Drupal guys and
others to submit their changes? Perhaps by then Matthias or you
or someone else will have stepped up.
concerning GPL:
The message from the drupal guys is that the code altered that much
from initial solrjs that they think it's legally acceptable to get
their new code out under GPL and "only" mention that it was
inspired by the still existing Apache License solrjs.
Sounds reasonable for me but I have few experience with this kind
of legal issues. So what do you think?
Oh, it's legally fine. The ASL let's you do pretty much whatever
you want. But that is pretty much the point. You're taking code
with no restrictions on it and putting a whole slew of them back in,
preventing Solr from ever distributing it in the future. Something
about that stinks to me. There is a pretty large reason why we do
our work at the ASF and not under GPL. I won't go into it here, but
suffice it to say one can go read volumes of backstory on this
elsewhere by searching for GPL vs ASL (or BSD). Furthermore,
Matthias, it may be the case in the future that all that work you
did for SolrJS may not even be accessible to you, the original
author, under the GPL terms, depending on the company (many, many
companies explicitly forbid GPL), etc. that you work for. Is that
what you want?
Also, they can't call it SolrJS, though, as that is the name of our
version.
