I suppose it will depend on how people will use your code, but if
they make your API part of a bigger application they might have to
open-source the application.

Also, if they decide to extend the API, all the software built on top
of yours will have to be open-sourced.
I am not saying this is bad, WURFL has always meant to be open-
source, but certainly might generate some issues, especially for
consultants and companies using their software. They will have to
carefully consider the new licensing.

- Andrea


Il giorno 16/apr/08, alle ore 16:09, Luca Passani ha scritto:
> People, I am still defining the details around the licensing, so
> discussing is OK. Before you say anything, though, consider the
> following:
>
> - GPL is by far the most widely used license for open-source projects
>
> - GPL does not force you to redistribute anything, unless you are
> including it into a commercial product that you are
> reselling/redistributing and which is not GPL.
> This means that if you work as a consultant for a customer, you and
> your customer will be able to use the API without paying a dime.
>
> - If you do not want to be bound by the terms of the GPL for any
> reason,
> I am planning to offer the API with a commercial license for a fee,
> which would effectively solve the problem.
>
> - This economic side to the project is what allows me to be on WURFL
> full time and to create/maintain a better API for everyone.
>
> Finally, I was advised to license WURFL under AGPL (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License ) and I
> said
> no exactly because I wanted regular consulting company to be able
> to use
> it for their services without having to pay for it.
>
> Of course, GPL only applies to the APIs. Not the data, which,
> according
> to US laws, cannot be copyrighted.
>
> Luca
>
> Vjekoslav Nesek wrote:
>> Luca, Jose,
>>
>> My understanding of Java + GPL is that if you use any GPL ... your
>> whole
>> application
>> has to be released under GPL. You can keep it proprietary if and
>> only if
>> it's a hosted
>> service and not something that you ship to customers in which case
>> you
>> are required
>> to release a whole source under GPL to a public.
>>
>> As WURFL and WALL are components, GPL is really limiting and I'm
>> certain
>> that
>> a lot of companies will refrain from using it. Luca, please consider
>> using LGPL or
>> better yet APL or some BSD variant. IMHO by going GPL you'll not
>> gain a
>> lot but
>> it'll certainly help fragmentation of APIs that use WURFL data.
>>
>>
>> BR,
>> Vjekoslav Nesek
>>
>>
>> Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Luca,
>>>
>>> Would it be possible for the License (or one of the available
>>> licenses
>>> ) to be at least LGPL, Apache or something of the sort?
>>>
>>> As I understand the legalese of GPL, it is an infectious license.
>>> Any
>>> code distributed that uses any GPL licensed library has to be
>>> licensed
>>> under GPL. Which means that if I build something that uses WURFL I
>>> would be forced to give ALL of my original work for free and under
>>> GPL. Even if you ask people to download the WURFL classes separately
>>> the fact that one's code links to GLP libraries causes the license
>>> infection to happen.
>>>
>>> This is a particular problem with Java code as the code would at
>>> least mention the interface classes.
>>>
>>> Has anyone been phased with this kinds of issues when layers look at
>>> how to license your own original work? In particular in the US I
>>> have
>>> heard of people needing to remove and replace GPL code with other
>>> implementations that are more commercially friendly.
>>>
>>> Jose Alberto
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> As of July 14 2005, it's much easier to be banned from WMLProgramming!
> Please fail to read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/
> before you post.Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>