Hey Marcus! Let me first state that I dont want to force anyone to change a license. I just wanted to know if tapestry is right for the kind of project that I had in mind or not. :) Thats why I asked if there's a special reason for lgpl, and if there is I can happily live with it.
But you could still point me to a java webapp project except tapestry that uses *gpl and has a big community around it :) > On Monday, June 24, 2002, at 04:38 PM, Christoph Sturm wrote: > > > IMHO LGPL is a good license for an app server like jboss, but not a > > good license for a framework, because working with a framework > > includes changing parts of it, and I dont want to be forced > to submit > > all my > > I strongly disagree. I couldn't disagree more I might add. > IMHO the LGPL > is unsuited for JBoss (GPL is perfect). Frameworks are > perfectly ok with > LGPL. Ok, then you maybe dont know that jboss was gpl before, and they changed to lgpl because theoretically no java application can be gpl. See the jboss archives for the threads that led to this. Actually all webapp frameworks that I know of except tapestry have a bsd style license, and thats the only reason why I asked if a switch to bsd-type is possible. IMHO bsd licenses give the developer and the community more back, just because more people use it, and fix bugs and add extensions. You dont have to force people to give something back :) > I'm a framework maintainer myself. LGPL ensures that people can > use source code in their apps despite the fact that you have to > distribute certain bits of it (nameley extensions you made to the > LGPL'ed parts). It also ensures that YOU as the framework > author get at > least a bit of your investments back from the community > process (which > is fine to me). If a framework is well designed (and I'm > convinced that > Tapestry is well designed) you don't have to hack here and there. IMO > this usually happens by not understanding the concepts of > that framework > (but I might be wrong). Yeah, but sometimes I dont understand certain parts of a framework, but still have to get a resolution for a problem. And then I'm happy that I can come up with a quick fix without having to ship my sourcecode. > > > > changes back, and give all my customers the sourcecode of tapestry, > > where most of them dont even know what tapestry is. If they > knew they > > would just code my app themselves, because working with tapestry is > > sooo easy :)) > > This statement convinces me that LGPL is the perfect license for > Tapestry. This statement convinces me that you have no sense of humor :) I still think that hiding the opensource roots of a commercial project is a valid point, just because some people dont like stuff that is based on opensource. Best Regards chris ------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
