Hula licensing

Alex Hudson wrote:
> ...
> According to the notice on hula-project.org, they're
not the copyright
> holders - it appears that Novell is retaining that.

Interesting. Presumably this means that future code will be
copyright by
both Messaging Architects and Novell? Having multiple
copyright holders
in an (L)GPL code base is a really good thing, IMHO, because
it requires
all copyright holders to agree on any licensing change.

> The LGPL isn't really much different to the GPL in this
case, either,
> you still have to make the source available etc.

<Disclaimer>Not trying to start a licensing flame war,
just trying to
make a minor point.</Disclaimer>

You don't *have* to do anything if you're the copyright
holder.  You're
not obligated to release future versions; even if you do,
you're not
obligated to release them under the same license; even if
you do,
there's nothing to stop you from simultaneously releasing
the same code
to different parties under different license conditions.

-- 
Paul
<http://paulgear.webhop
.net>
--
Did you know?  Using HTML email (or "Rich Text"
email) rather than plain
text is less efficient, and makes you more vulnerable to
security flaws
in your computer software.  Learn more about securing your
computer at
<http://www
.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878>.


_______________________________________________
Hula-general mailing list
Hula-generalforge.novell.com
http://forge.novell.com/mailman/listinfo/hula-general

Alex..  do you think it could be due to the Unix licensing
Novell has 
over everyone else?  As Linux itself is not licensed.....
and the 
components like GLIBC that were rewrittin..?

Just a thought..  as it would cover them to include
components..

Ray

Paul Gear wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
>   
>> ...
>> According to the notice on hula-project.org,
they're not the copyright
>> holders - it appears that Novell is retaining
that.
>>     
>
> Interesting. Presumably this means that future code
will be copyright by
> both Messaging Architects and Novell? Having multiple
copyright holders
> in an (L)GPL code base is a really good thing, IMHO,
because it requires
> all copyright holders to agree on any licensing
change.
>
>   
>> The LGPL isn't really much different to the GPL in
this case, either,
>> you still have to make the source available etc.
>>     
>
> <Disclaimer>Not trying to start a licensing flame
war, just trying to
> make a minor point.</Disclaimer>
>
> You don't *have* to do anything if you're the copyright
holder.  You're
> not obligated to release future versions; even if you
do, you're not
> obligated to release them under the same license; even
if you do,
> there's nothing to stop you from simultaneously
releasing the same code
> to different parties under different license
conditions.
>
>   
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hula-general mailing list
> Hula-generalforge.novell.com
> http://forge.novell.com/mailman/listinfo/hula-general
_______________________________________________
Hula-general mailing list
Hula-generalforge.novell.com
http://forge.novell.com/mailman/listinfo/hula-general