http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/ The Quest for Software++ Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:19:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-214 Mark Brackett Thu, 23 Nov 2006 02:28:55 +0000 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-214 Reads to me like you can't use it in a product that would *require* the release of the source code of ObjectBuilder. Basically, that it's not GPL compatible. That being said, most other FOSS libraries are LGPL, which, AFAIK, do not require the GPLing of all bits of the final product. So, ObjectBuilder's license (at least the parts quoted) are perfectly compatible with that. You couldn't, however, add ObjectBuilder to a GPLed product - since that'd require the ObjectBuilder code to be GPLed, which you don't have the right to do (the so called viral aspect of GPL). Reads to me like you can’t use it in a product that would *require* the release of the source code of ObjectBuilder. Basically, that it’s not GPL compatible.
That being said, most other FOSS libraries are LGPL, which, AFAIK, do not require the GPLing of all bits of the final product. So, ObjectBuilder’s license (at least the parts quoted) are perfectly compatible with that.
You couldn’t, however, add ObjectBuilder to a GPLed product - since that’d require the ObjectBuilder code to be GPLed, which you don’t have the right to do (the so called viral aspect of GPL).

]]> http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-205 Daniel Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:02:47 +0000 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-205 IANAL either, but I read this to mean you can use it in a free, open source app, but that you can't use it to create your own "MegaObjectBuilder", or make a minor change and re-license it. Similar to requiring changes be donated back to the project. The performance test thing is a bit weird. IANAL either, but I read this to mean you can use it in a free, open source app, but that you can’t use it to create your own “MegaObjectBuilder”, or make a minor change and re-license it. Similar to requiring changes be donated back to the project. The performance test thing is a bit weird.

]]> http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-202 jason Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:53:29 +0000 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-202 take a look at nhibernate should follow the same license as hibernate and is the basis for castle. take a look at nhibernate should follow the same license as hibernate and is the basis for castle.

]]> http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-201 peter Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:50:02 +0000 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-201 Check out the .net port of the spring framework. It's the best I've worked with. Check out the .net port of the spring framework. It’s the best I’ve worked with.

]]> http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-195 CyberMandrake Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:43:01 +0000 http://gojko.net/2006/11/19/license-wars/#comment-195 It seems to be some kind of GPL-allergy that drove the paragraph #2. They should forbid only the distribution, not the simple combination, to protect their "property". They would be more honest by saying: "You can see the code, but don't touch it: it's ours and you cannot use it!" It seems to be some kind of GPL-allergy that drove the paragraph #2. They should forbid only the distribution, not the simple combination, to protect their “property”.
They would be more honest by saying: “You can see the code, but don’t touch it: it’s ours and you cannot use it!”

]]>