[ANNOUNCE] New version of the JAXML module

[Gerhard Häring]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:00:59 +0100, Jerome Alet <alet at unice.fr> wrote:
>Gerhard Häring wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:08:24 +0100, Jerome Alet <alet at unice.fr> wrote:
>> >The JAXML module is GPLed, you can download it freely from:
>> >
>> >        http://cortex.unice.fr/~jerome/jaxml/
>
>> Could you please change the license to LGPL or another more liberal license?
>> This would make your module usable by a lot more people. Putting the GPL on
>> a library prevents it from being used in a commercial application.
>
>Several people have already asked the same thing...
>
>The purpose of the GPL on this module is not to forbid you to use it in
>a commercial application, but to forbid you to use it in a proprietary
>application, which is very different.

Yes, I know. Using a GPL-ed library in any of my programs restricts options
on what I can do with *my code*, though. I just like to have all the
options. I might troll and say the GPL is less free than the BSD license,
but let's not start this flamewar again.

>If your commercial application is delivered under the GPL then there's
>no problem: feel free to sell it, and sell my module if you want. But
>you must also give the same rights to
>the people you sell it.

Yes that's my point. If I use a GPL'd module the author forces me to GPL the
rest of my code. That's why using it restricts me. The LGPL would protect
*your* work, but wouldn't try to force *mine* under GPL, too. That's why I
prefer LGPL or BSD licensed libraries.

>Despite its very small size, I think this module is (or could be made)
>powerful, and it took me some time to write it, so I don't want it to be
>used in non-Free Software. I think (maybe I'm wrong) that its simplicity
>of use compared to the official (and of course more complete) XML
>modules is attractive and is an advantage given to the Free Software
>world.
>
>Since I want to give my copyright on this module to the FSF, their
>policy might be different and they could decide to put it under the
>LGPL, but now it is GPLed.
>
>So, not to be rude, but your only options are:
>
>	* use this module internally and don't redistribute your work
>	* distribute your application under the GPL licence (best choice for
>people)
>	* don't use my module (probably your best choice for a proprietary
>application)

Just to be clear: Of course I respect your licensing decision. You perfectly
know the implications of putting *libary* under the GPL. That's fine. I just
wanted to be sure.

Gerhard
-- 
mail:   gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de
web:    http://highqualdev.com