[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Licensing of jlouis to make it more suitable for others
- From: "John J. Boyer" <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:43:25 -0500
Michael,
You aren't going to like this. I am developing bindings using JNI for
all three libraries. They will have the same license and colpyright
holders as the libraries. The Java code is nearly in its final form.
Some things, such as that liblouis may be compiled for either 2 or 4
byte characters, are best handled in the C code. You will remember
that Laura Eaves, who was originally given the task of developing
bindings, turned it over to me when she became too busy with other
things. She agrees with my approach. I will post the bindings on both
lists when they are finished and tested. I felt that I had to answer
your message now, however.
Right now I'm trying to figure out how to tell Gnu autotools to compile
the C code as shared libraries. Any suggestions will be welcome.
John
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 09:09:05PM +0100, Michael Whapples wrote:
> Hello,
> I am writing this on the liblouis list because I think this is where the
> people who may wish to see this will be found (John Boyer, John Gardner
> and Christian Egli asked about this) and others here may be interested
> or may wish to comment.
>
> I realise that the QPL which I chose to publish jlouis
> (http://bitbucket.org/mwhapples/jlouis) may not be suitable for some
> projects. Now the first thing to notice is that I am prepared to
> negotiate licenses here, may be someone could help me find a suitable
> one for external projects whilst giving me the protection I desire.
>
> So the protection I desire from a license: In short I generally have
> quite a high standard for quality (I should mention here, I don't feel
> jlouis is actually complete yet, more work should be done before I could
> make a 1.0 release) and I was aware that there were some suggestions
> where people wanted to make alterations I had to strongly advise against
> and could never include in my own version. My concern from that is if I
> were to refuse certain alterations to be included in my official version
> then people may just fork the code. In such an event I want to ensure
> that those who fork the code must make it very clear what their changes
> are, therefore guaranteeing that I would have no association to any
> change I do not like. Ideally I would also want it that any fork has to
> be renamed, again this is to help make it clear what is my version and
> what is a modified version. I also would like to have the license make
> it clear that any modified version is not endorsed by me and possibly
> even include a clause about not allowing my name, etc to be used in
> advertising (like in the old BSD license, but its fairly rare to find
> licenses including that now).
>
> While the QPL does not require the renaming of modified versions its
> clauses on modifications having to be distributed separately (eg. as
> patches) certainly offered me strong disassociation with any
> modifications I do not make.
>
> I'll certainly give the LGPL another close reading to see whether that
> offers me the protection I am asking for, but if any others have
> suggestions which may also be suitable for me and other projects who may
> wish to use jlouis then make the suggestions.
>
> Finally I will come to the copyright matter. At the moment I see very
> little advantage for me to hand over copyright to abilitiessoft and
> viewplus, jlouis seems to work well enough as a third party module and I
> see little advantage to including it actually in liblouis.
>
> Michael Whapples
> For a description of the software and to download it go to
> http://www.jjb-software.com
--
John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
Abilitiessoft, Inc.
http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Madison, Wisconsin USA
Developing software for people with disabilities
For a description of the software and to download it go to
http://www.jjb-software.com
Other related posts:
