Netstruxr was a dot-com - the start of WOnder was to opensource our codebase and frameworks to basically save the code because the company was doomed.
That was like, ten years ago now - On May 10, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Dov Rosenberg wrote: > 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/jtayler%40oeinc.com > > This email sent to [email protected] > _______________________________________________ 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]
