That is basically a BSD license which is good. Who is NetStruxr? There is no other reference to that group anywhere else I could find. It appears to be a group that no longer exists. There should be a license at the top level of the source tree, this implies that the license covers the entire code base. The way it looks now - only ERDirectToWeb, ERExtensions, and WOOgnl have a LICENSE.NPL file. The rest of the code is not explicitly licensed.
If there are other licensed components in the subprojects - those should be clearly licensed as well. Judging by the list of 3rd party acknowledgements it might make sense to have a separate license file/folder per project. Most of the open source licenses require some sort of acknowledgement. Apple did a great job on the licensing of the JavaXML framework (even though the framework itself is of questionable value) - there is a license folder in the WebServerResources/Java folder that contains all of the required 3rd party acknowledgements. In the main xcode license there is a notice of the inclusion of the various third party licenses. The only thing about the Xcode license that caused us a little bit of grief was the clause under the WebObjects section that stated that we had to do all of our WO development on Apple branded machines. This isnt a problem for our group, but it raised the eyebrows of the lawyers (who all used PCs of course). Dov Rosenberg On 5/9/11 8:14 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <[email protected]> wrote: >I assume ERExtensions/Documentation/LICENSE.NPL does... so what about NPL >has this audit deemed offensive? > >Ramsey > >On May 9, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: > >> Those acknowledgements are required if you are using some types of open >>source licenses like LGPL. Those do not constitute proper licensing for >>project wonder >> >> Dov Rosenberg >> >> On May 9, 2011, at 6:14 PM, "Ramsey Gurley" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >>> >>> On May 9, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: >>> >>>> Just having gone thru an extensive software audit of all of the third >>>>party licensing that our company uses (including WebObjects and >>>>Project Wonder among a zillion other things). I would like to propose >>>>that Project Wonder adopt a more consistent license for the code base. >>>>The best licenses for open source products to use so that commercial >>>>products can utilize those components are Apache 2.0, BSD, and MIT. It >>>>would be best to include the license file in the download for binary >>>>and source for WOProject and Project Wonder. Right now I think these >>>>items are under an old NetStruxr license thru objectstyle. It was very >>>>difficult to find the license files for Project Wonder and WOProject >>>> >>>> Any component licensed under GPL, LGPL 3.0, EPL, CPL were poison to >>>>us and we had to remove them. LGPL v2.1 components sucked less and we >>>>were allowed to keep them as long as we didn't modify them in any way. >>>> >>>> Dov Rosenberg >>> >>> http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WONDER/Acknowledgements >>> >>> Ramsey >>> > _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [email protected]
