It also fits with the fact that its pretty heavily tied to ant... cant
remember which project it was recently, but a similar argument (the we're
using apache, so our license should be apache-friendly) was put on that
list...
cheers
dim
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Rickard [iso-8859-1] �berg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> During a short excursion to the EJBGen mailing list the subject of
> license came up. I hadn't realized this before, but EJBDoclet and now
> XDoclet has been licensed as GPL.
>
> Preferably this should change, for a couple of reasons. In no particular
> order they are as follows:
> * If you keep up with the happenings in the OpenSource world you will
> have heard about RMS' latest doings. IMHO he has now crossed the line
> over to insanity. I don't trust him one second, and would not be
> surprised if strange things happen with the wording of the GPL license
> in the not-so-distant future. Thus, changing to another license would
> allow us to avoid that insanity. It's a strange world these days, but
> there you go. Adapt and survive.
>
> * I have found many instances at my work where a XDoclet plugin would
> make very much sense. However, many of those instances are very
> Xpedio-specific and wouldn't make any sense elsewhere. Hence, there
> wouldn't really be any point in putting those plugins into the main
> XDoclet CVS and downloads. However, with the GPL license it has to be
> that way, due to the virality thing. Another license (e.g. BSD or
> Apache) would solve that nicely.
>
> So, because of this I would like to propose the following:
> a change of license for XDoclet from GPL to the BSD license, since it
> solves both above points and since the BSD license is widely known.
>
> Before we start the voting, I would like to hear comments from the other
> developers and users of this project on this issue.
>
> regards,
> Rickard
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
