Andrea Trasatti wrote:
> 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.
>
No. They won't. You need to release your code as GPL only if you
redistribute your application. MySQL is distributed under GPL and this
has not prevented companies big and small from using it (which includes
google and yahoo) without having to open source their code.
> Also, if they decide to extend the API, all the software built on top
> of yours will have to be open-sourced.
>
also not true.
> 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.
>
Sure. Anyway, if GPL is a problem for a company, a little cash will fix
it. Also, the plan is to discount the price of the commercial license
for those who buy consulting services from my company.

Luca

> - 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>