OFBiz › OFBiz - Dev

Dual licensing

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

4 messages Options

Jacques Le Roux

Dual licensing

Administrator

Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago whith Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for
ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)

Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2 persons who are listed here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728
if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This would allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by
Andrew Sykes)

Jacques

From: "Sam Ruby" <[hidden email]>

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
>> definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
>> (category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
>> licensed under category B or category C?
>>
>> Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
>> LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
>> the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
>> prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).
>
> Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License
>
> This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
> acceptable for use by ASF projects. The fact that it additionally is
> made available under a different license does not impose any
> additional restrictions on us. This would be equally true if the
> second license were proprietary.
>
> The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
> As licensors, we do not dual license our code.
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Ashish Vijaywargiya-5

Re: Dual licensing

+1

--
Ashish

Jacques Le Roux wrote:

Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago whith Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for 
ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)

Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2 persons who are listed here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728
if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This would allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by 
Andrew Sykes)

Jacques

From: "Sam Ruby" [hidden email]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu [hidden email] wrote:

Hello,

I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
(category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
licensed under category B or category C?

Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).

Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License

This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
acceptable for use by ASF projects.  The fact that it additionally is
made available under a different license does not impose any
additional restrictions on us.  This would be equally true if the
second license were proprietary.

The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
As licensors, we do not dual license our code.

Cheers,

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Jacques Le Roux

Re: Dual licensing

Administrator

Here are the 2 links
http://dean.edwards.name/my/cssQuery/
http://code.google.com/p/ajaxslt/source/browse/trunk/xpath.js?spec=svn37&r=37

It seems that xpath has been enhanced since. But I guess selenium core code also.

I'd appreciate some help, anyway it's waiting for years now...

Thanks

Jacques
PS : Mmm, there seems to be a bad and a good news see
http://markmail.org/message/a73qeqeyb4lokjzg
good : according to Brett xpath is not a problem (I was not sure when I wrote that 1st time)
bad : no news of Edwards Dean :/

----- Original Message -----
From: Ashish Vijaywargiya
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Dual licensing

+1

--
Ashish

Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago whith Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for
ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)

Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2 persons who are listed here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728
if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This would allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by
Andrew Sykes)

Jacques

From: "Sam Ruby" <[hidden email]>
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
(category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
licensed under category B or category C?

Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).
Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License

This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
acceptable for use by ASF projects. The fact that it additionally is
made available under a different license does not impose any
additional restrictions on us. This would be equally true if the
second license were proprietary.

The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
As licensors, we do not dual license our code.

Cheers,

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Brett

Re: Dual licensing

I brought this topic up again in a recent posting with selenium developers.
They were looking at replacing their CSS selector code with a jquery
solution. When they make this replacement they are planning to replace
their LGPL CSS selector code. They said in their 2.0 release but I don't
know when this will occur.

It may be easier to just replace it with a dojo selector solution and give
them the patch, but I haven't had time to look into this yet.

Brett

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Here are the 2 links
> http://dean.edwards.name/my/cssQuery/
>
> http://code.google.com/p/ajaxslt/source/browse/trunk/xpath.js?spec=svn37&r=37
>
> It seems that xpath has been enhanced since. But I guess selenium core code
> also.
>
> I'd appreciate some help, anyway it's waiting for years now...
>
> Thanks
>
> Jacques
> PS : Mmm, there seems to be a bad and a good news see
> http://markmail.org/message/a73qeqeyb4lokjzg
> good : according to Brett xpath is not a problem (I was not sure when I
> wrote that 1st time)
> bad : no news of Edwards Dean :/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ashish Vijaywargiya
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Dual licensing
>
>
> +1
>
> --
> Ashish
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago
> whith Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for
> ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)
>
> Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2
> persons who are listed here
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728
> if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This
> would allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by
> Andrew Sykes)
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Sam Ruby" <[hidden email]>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
> definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
> (category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
> licensed under category B or category C?
>
> Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
> LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
> the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
> prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).
> Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License
>
> This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
> acceptable for use by ASF projects. The fact that it additionally is
> made available under a different license does not impose any
> additional restrictions on us. This would be equally true if the
> second license were proprietary.
>
> The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
> As licensors, we do not dual license our code.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>