| Lomboz and Licensing question [message #24183] |
Fri, 21 May 2004 11:23  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: tre8426171.aol.com
From the ObjectLearn website it mentions Lomboz is LGPL licensed. In another
section of site the license does not look at all like the LGPL
("redistribute in binary form only")
http://www.objectlearn.com/legal/license.jsp
Several questions come to mind as it relates to the webtools project:
1) Why the differences with the licenses on the objectlearn.com
2) Is there any intent to included Lomboz source within the webtools
project?
- If so, have the licensing issues been thoroughly examined?
2a) If a contributor to a LGPL project contributes source code is there a
contract (or quasi-contract) that the license is to remain LGPL? I've seen
projects change licensing policy, and think they are in error. I heard
Mozilla contacted all contributors prior to changing their license terms. I
feel there's a legal ramification to this (changing license) - the
contributors made the contribution under a specific license, and to change
license perhaps violates this agreement. I've also seen licenses that
specify the copyright is assigned to that organization - which would then
lead me to believe they can change license terms at will. (Not being a
lawyer I'm not even sure contract law is applicable, IP law perhaps, I don't
know.)
Don't take my inquires in the wrong tone. I'm asking these questions so that
any potential issues are resolved early, and hopefully if there are issues
they are made clear to all who might contribute. Hopefully there is no issue
in bringing source from Lomboz or for that matter other LGPL projects to a
CPL project, but I suspect there are issues with doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.02182 seconds
Home