Comments on: Openfire switches to the Apache License 2.0 http://aniszczyk.org/2009/09/30/openfire-switches-to-the-apache-license-2-0/ work. life. open source. diatribes. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris Aniszczyk http://aniszczyk.org/2009/09/30/openfire-switches-to-the-apache-license-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-1248 Chris Aniszczyk Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:50:56 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=1082#comment-1248 Thanks Ekke, I didn't know about Logback! That's great news! We should add projects who use to EPL on <a href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/EPL" rel="nofollow">Eclipsepedia</a> Thanks Ekke, I didn’t know about Logback! That’s great news!

We should add projects who use to EPL on Eclipsepedia

]]> By: Chris Aniszczyk http://aniszczyk.org/2009/09/30/openfire-switches-to-the-apache-license-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-3092 Chris Aniszczyk Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:50:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=1082#comment-3092 Thanks Ekke, I didn't know about Logback! That's great news! We should add projects who use to EPL on <a href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/EPL" rel="nofollow">Eclipsepedia</a> Thanks Ekke, I didn’t know about Logback! That’s great news!

We should add projects who use to EPL on Eclipsepedia

]]> By: ekke http://aniszczyk.org/2009/09/30/openfire-switches-to-the-apache-license-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-1246 ekke Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:00:20 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=1082#comment-1246 There are also other projects changing licensing: I'm using Logback (http://logback.qos.ch) as native SLF4J implementation. just from the logback mailing list: Ceki Gülcü: After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption. Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL. ... So much good news these days about licensing! There are also other projects changing licensing:
I’m using Logback (http://logback.qos.ch) as native SLF4J implementation.
just from the logback mailing list:

Ceki Gülcü:
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of
licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and
LGPL 2.1 would help with the project’s adoption.
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of
the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate
organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL
whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also
keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of
(L)GPL.
…

So much good news these days about licensing!

]]> By: ekke http://aniszczyk.org/2009/09/30/openfire-switches-to-the-apache-license-2-0/comment-page-1/#comment-3091 ekke Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:00:00 +0000 http://aniszczyk.org/?p=1082#comment-3091 There are also other projects changing licensing: I'm using Logback (http://logback.qos.ch) as native SLF4J implementation. just from the logback mailing list: Ceki Gülcü: After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and LGPL 2.1 would help with the project's adoption. Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of (L)GPL. ... So much good news these days about licensing! There are also other projects changing licensing:
I’m using Logback (http://logback.qos.ch) as native SLF4J implementation.
just from the logback mailing list:

Ceki Gülcü:
After a very long investigation resulting in a better understanding of
licensing issues, I think dual-licensing logback under EPL 1.0 and
LGPL 2.1 would help with the project’s adoption.
Licensees can then choose either the terms of the EPL or the terms of
the LGPL when they use logback. The EPL license will placate
organizations which refuse the restrictions imposed by the LGPL
whereas the LGPL license ensures continuity in licensing and also
keeps the door open for licensees already bound by the terms of
(L)GPL.
…

So much good news these days about licensing!

]]>