[cas-dev] license for upcoming CAS4 server

[David Whitehurst]

Scott:

Here's a good question.  Does one license truly cover CAS completely?

E.g. I use software from all over and I'm looking for a Money.java
file.  The JDK has a Currency.java but money is the representation,
including the amount of that currency.  I find a really good
Money.java.  It uses Creative Commons and says that I must display the
license.  I can rename all the variables and write the entire
BigDecimal wrapper by hand and still copy it almost verbatim.  My
maven project uses the Apache license and I don't refer to the
Creative Commons one.  Do I have to create this mis-match of licenses
for this hacked up API or can I just have an open source license that
says you can use this, modify this, do what you will, but expect no
warranties?

I see this all the time.  Can you say that no other license comes into
play except for the JA-SIG one?  There's not one piece of software
that doesn't say you "must" provide "this" license or copyright in any
of it?

David


On 11/18/08, Scott Battaglia <scott.battaglia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:36 PM, David Whitehurst
> <dlwhitehurst at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Benn:
> >
> > Also JBoss uses an End User License Agreement (EULA).  I think this is
> > a good idea especially for a "product".  Instead of a JA-SIG
> > stand-alone license, you could use a JA-SIG EULA for each product.
>
> I don't believe we'll be looking to EULA's considering most people hate them!:
> http://xkcd.org/501/
>
> ;-)
>
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 11/18/08, David Whitehurst <dlwhitehurst at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Benn:
> >>
> >> This is so crazy!  Let me share a situation I am dealing with now.  I
> >> am contracted for organization A to create enterprise architecture.
> >> Organization B has more political clout so they force an Oracle
> >> solution (identity management) on me for one specific application
> >> suite.  The Oracle solution uses it's own licence but tests their
> >> product on version 2.0.52 for Apache.  We use and have accepted
> >> version 2.2.8 of Apache.  This is just one of the constraints.  So,
> >> now my enterprise solution, using JBoss and the LGPL (includes all
> >> these licenses) must be run on an IIS Windows server using a terminal
> >> window to start and stop JBoss.  They won't buy an NT Service wrapper.
> >>
> >> My issue as an evangelist and integrator of open source, is that the
> >> licenses cause lots of confusion.  People choose them incorrectly.
> >> Or, they choose "something".  Or they ignore them altogether.  For
> >> CAS, I would use a GNU license and maybe the LGPL.  I think at least
> >> there's strong legal intelligence behind it.  And, I think that the
> >> goal is to let us write and share software to be able to communicate
> >> with computers in the most effective manner.  And, by sharing what we
> >> learn, things only get better.  We've already made the wheel.  We
> >> should use it.
> >>
> >> I'm anxious to see what license is chosen.  I'm starting a non-profit
> >> organization and some open source projects with another friend and we
> >> haven't chosen a license.  We will model the organization much like
> >> Apache but somewhat custom.  I've been leaning towards the GNU
> >> licenses.  And, our stuff won't be an Apache product so why associate
> >> with Apache.  I think the license should support the goal and I
> >> haven't hired a lawyer for this task yet.  When I ultimately do loose
> >> the cash for the lawyer, I'll share anything I find with all my
> >> partners in crime.
> >>
> >> Please post here with any news.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> On 11/18/08, Benn Oshrin <benjamin.oshrin at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> >> > --On November 18, 2008 8:37:16 AM -0500 Scott Battaglia
> >> > <scott.battaglia at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ] We're looking at a license that provides more protection for
> >> > ] contributors and adapters.  I'm not actually on the working group
> >> > ] looking into this, but I trust their judgment ;-)
> >> >
> >> > ] On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Olivier Berger
> >> > ] <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ] > Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for change from BSD to
> >> > ] > Apache2 ?
> >> >
> >> > In addition to the protection issue, there is also concern about license
> >> > alignment with other open-source higher ed oriented projects.
> >> >
> >> > One of the questions that has come up is whether or not GPL style copyleft
> >> > should be included.  I'd be interested to hear if anybody has any strong
> >> > opinions for or against, off list if you prefer.
> >> >
> >> > -Benn-
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > cas-dev mailing list
> >> > cas-dev at tp.its.yale.edu
> >> > http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
> >> >
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > cas-dev mailing list
> > cas-dev at tp.its.yale.edu
> > http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cas-dev mailing list
> cas-dev at tp.its.yale.edu
> http://tp.its.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-dev
>