Comments on: Desktop Matters http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/ Love being a Swing developer Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:20:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Link Dizini http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-1278 Link Dizini Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:13:23 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-1278 i think open sourcing this project will be wonderful and an intelligent move.Becouse of that developments will speed up i think open sourcing this project will be wonderful and an intelligent move.Becouse of that developments will speed up

]]> By: Bruce Alspaugh http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-223 Bruce Alspaugh Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:08:43 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-223 I don't know if the proposed licensing models will work for my two projects, because I have to be extremely careful when it comes to managing my dependencies to avoid restrictions on what I can do with my own code. The first project is a rich client framework used to develop database forms and report applications. I am considering open-sourcing this framework using the Apache or BSD license. Users of my rich client framework should be able to freely build open-source, closed-source, or commercial applications. I'm writing my own docking framework rather than using JIDE for this reason. The second project is a commercial port of a financial accounting program that would leverage my rich client application framework. I should not have to pay to use my own application framework in a commercial environment. I have no problem contributing back code modifications to the JIDE Common Layer library. The licensing complications arise if I release code that has Common Layer as a dependency. As far as what Sun is doing, I find it ironic they would take an Apache project (Derby) and bundle it with JDK 6 as Java DB. I don’t know if the proposed licensing models will work for my two projects, because I have to be extremely careful when it comes to managing my dependencies to avoid restrictions on what I can do with my own code.

The first project is a rich client framework used to develop database forms and report applications. I am considering open-sourcing this framework using the Apache or BSD license. Users of my rich client framework should be able to freely build open-source, closed-source, or commercial applications. I’m writing my own docking framework rather than using JIDE for this reason.

The second project is a commercial port of a financial accounting program that would leverage my rich client application framework. I should not have to pay to use my own application framework in a commercial environment.

I have no problem contributing back code modifications to the JIDE Common Layer library. The licensing complications arise if I release code that has Common Layer as a dependency.

As far as what Sun is doing, I find it ironic they would take an Apache project (Derby) and bundle it with JDK 6 as Java DB.

]]> By: David Qiao http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-208 David Qiao Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:21:58 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-208 Would free commercial license be an option for you? We have to make GPL + classpath exception as one of the license options in order to allow the vast number of GPL-ed projects using JIDE. The other OS licenses are way too open. So as long as you choose an open source license doesn't prevent you from using both GPL and commercial, you can use JIDE. Would free commercial license be an option for you? We have to make GPL + classpath exception as one of the license options in order to allow the vast number of GPL-ed projects using JIDE. The other OS licenses are way too open. So as long as you choose an open source license doesn’t prevent you from using both GPL and commercial, you can use JIDE.

]]> By: Evert Tigchelaar jr http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-207 Evert Tigchelaar jr Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:50:13 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-207 The current JDK I use isn't licenced under gpl. I am planing to move to Apache Harmony. It was just plain stupid of Sun to go for GPL, the problem is the gpl and Linux people, they only accept gpl and nothing else. If I want to use your libs in an open source project, which options do I have? I am forced to use gpl or do I have other options? I have no problem with contibute code back after I modified it. I am personaly more for licences as Apache and BSD but I am also like commerical licences more then (l)gpl. The current JDK I use isn’t licenced under gpl. I am planing to move to Apache Harmony. It was just plain stupid of Sun to go for GPL, the problem is the gpl and Linux people, they only accept gpl and nothing else.

If I want to use your libs in an open source project, which options do I have?
I am forced to use gpl or do I have other options?

I have no problem with contibute code back after I modified it.
I am personaly more for licences as Apache and BSD but I am also like commerical licences more then (l)gpl.

]]> By: David Qiao http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-196 David Qiao Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:25:01 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-196 One thing I was wondering if you don't want to use anything using GPL, does it mean you won't use JDK either since JDK is released as GPL + Classpath Exception? One option we are considering is to release under two licenses. First license option GPL + Classpath Exception or whatever license as JDK is using. This option is for any open source projects. As long as people use JDK, they can use JIDE Common Layer. The second license is commercial license but it is absolutely free. This is mainly for commercial users who don't want to deal with GPL of any format. We certainly are not interested to get into any license war. All we want is to let as many people as possible using JIDE Common Layer but not making it a public domain kind of thing which people use it, modify it but never contribute it back. One thing I was wondering if you don’t want to use anything using GPL, does it mean you won’t use JDK either since JDK is released as GPL + Classpath Exception?

One option we are considering is to release under two licenses. First license option GPL + Classpath Exception or whatever license as JDK is using. This option is for any open source projects. As long as people use JDK, they can use JIDE Common Layer. The second license is commercial license but it is absolutely free. This is mainly for commercial users who don’t want to deal with GPL of any format.

We certainly are not interested to get into any license war. All we want is to let as many people as possible using JIDE Common Layer but not making it a public domain kind of thing which people use it, modify it but never contribute it back.

]]> By: Bruce Alspaugh http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-195 Bruce Alspaugh Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:57:30 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-195 I second what Everet is saying and vote for the Apache 2.0 license also. I would never use any library under the GPL license, and I don't like the LGPL much either. I second what Everet is saying and vote for the Apache 2.0 license also. I would never use any library under the GPL license, and I don’t like the LGPL much either.

]]> By: Neil Weber http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-163 Neil Weber Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:59:14 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-163 Definitely not GPL. LGPL is good. Definitely not GPL. LGPL is good.

]]> By: Evert Tigchelaar jr http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-161 Evert Tigchelaar jr Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:37:58 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-161 I vote for the Apache licence, way better then the licences from the dark side of open source (gpl and lgpl). With it your product are protected, if someone change the code he/she has make the changes availible and its more friendly to others. I am currently using some libraries from JIDE with the licence for open source projects any I am hapy with that. I hope that option will stay be availible in the future. I will never use any library under gpl and I don't like lgpl very much eather. Can I use lgpl code in bsd licenced application? I vote for the Apache licence, way better then the licences from the dark side of open source (gpl and lgpl). With it your product are protected, if someone change the code he/she has make the changes availible and its more friendly to others.

I am currently using some libraries from JIDE with the licence for open source projects any I am hapy with that. I hope that option will stay be availible in the future. I will never use any library under gpl and I don’t like lgpl very much eather. Can I use lgpl code in bsd licenced application?

]]> By: Adam Taft http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-160 Adam Taft Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:27:59 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-160 LGPL is traditional for libraries such as this. Essentially, any published/distributed modification of your code must be provided to the end user. You will get much more adoption with the LGPL vs. GPL because commercial projects will be able to integrate with it without worry of the implications of their proprietary works. In fact, you'd probably want to be extra careful in choosing GPL at all, given that your own higher level commercial products are based on the common layer which you're opening. Granted, you own the copyright so it's a non-issue. None-the-less, LGPL would be consistent with your guys' use of the library. LGPL is traditional for libraries such as this. Essentially, any published/distributed modification of your code must be provided to the end user. You will get much more adoption with the LGPL vs. GPL because commercial projects will be able to integrate with it without worry of the implications of their proprietary works.

In fact, you’d probably want to be extra careful in choosing GPL at all, given that your own higher level commercial products are based on the common layer which you’re opening. Granted, you own the copyright so it’s a non-issue. None-the-less, LGPL would be consistent with your guys’ use of the library.

]]> By: Augusto Sellhorn http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/2007/03/15/desktopmatters/#comment-15 Augusto Sellhorn Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:56:45 +0000 http://www.jidesoft.com/blog/?p=4#comment-15 I second usage of LGPL, and a clear license that lets commercial customers that they don't have to worry about any viral aspects of the GPL. Of course, not sure how LGPL would protect your commercial interests ... I second usage of LGPL, and a clear license that lets commercial customers that they don’t have to worry about any viral aspects of the GPL.

Of course, not sure how LGPL would protect your commercial interests …

]]>