[cas-dev] license for upcoming CAS4 server

Tue Nov 18 18:31:18 EST 2008

I'm not really sure what the concern is.  The libraries we use may not
use the same license but they will be compatible.  If they're not
compatible then we can't use them.

-Scott

-Scott Battaglia
PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:10 PM, David Whitehurst
<dlwhitehurst at gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott:
>
> Your last statement describes my concern.  It should never be a
> problem for the user or implementer.  It can be a problem but what I'm
> saying is that it should not be.  People should be able to use open
> source risk free.  It kills the Microsoft types.  If we could solve a
> few small problems more would adopt the use of open source for solving
> the true big problems in business.
>
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Scott Battaglia
> <scott.battaglia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Organizations that produce open-source software under a particular
>> license should take care to ensure that any third-party
>> libraries/software they utilize has a license that is compatible with
>> the license that they are using.
>>
>> In fact libraries we use within CAS may not be the same license as CAS
>> (though all of our source code uses the same license).
>>
>> An example of license compatibilities:
>> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ (also, see the article posted
>> before)
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>> -Scott Battaglia
>> PGP Public Key Id: 0x383733AA
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottbattaglia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, David Whitehurst
>> <dlwhitehurst at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>