Interested in your project

Aug 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM
The company I work for, s2000 Field Service Solutions, develops a Windows application (and soon a Mac application) that allows service dispatchers to track work orders, employees, vendors, and also includes a full accounting package. We are currently looking to develop a standalone web server that customers can deploy to give employees the ability to view their open workorders from a web browser or mobile phone.

Your project looks absolutely perfect for powering the application. However, as I am no lawyer (and am unfamiliar with the GNU LGPL), I wanted to contact you to discuss the licensing and such. Are we allowed to commercially distribute our application without revealing our own source code, while still using your library, and how much do you charge for commercial support?

Thank you for your time,
David Brown
Web Developer
s2000 Field Service Solutions, LLC
Coordinator
Aug 7, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Hello

Yes you may use the library in a closed source project without having
to include your source code, as long as you do it under some specific
terms.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php

You are mostly interested in section 5 and 6.

Well. It depends on what kind of support you want. Getting questions
answered can be done through the forum. Reporting bugs can be done
through the ticket system.
Getting those answered/fixed within a specific time range would
require commercial support (else we answer them as soon as we can,
normally within a week or less).

//Jonas


On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 12:54 AM, webdevguy <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:
> From: webdevguy
>
> The company I work for, s2000 Field Service Solutions, develops a Windows
> application (and soon a Mac application) that allows service dispatchers to
> track work orders, employees, vendors, and also includes a full accounting
> package. We are currently looking to develop a standalone web server that
> customers can deploy to give employees the ability to view their open
> workorders from a web browser or mobile phone.
>
> Your project looks absolutely perfect for powering the application. However,
> as I am no lawyer (and am unfamiliar with the GNU LGPL), I wanted to contact
> you to discuss the licensing and such. Are we allowed to commercially
> distribute our application without revealing our own source code, while
> still using your library, and how much do you charge for commercial support?
>
> Thank you for your time,
> David Brown
> Web Developer
> s2000 Field Service Solutions, LLC
>
> Read the full discussion online.
>
> To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email
> ([email removed])
>
> To start a new discussion for this project, email
> [email removed]
>
> You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on
> CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.
>
> Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts
> to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com
Apr 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Edited Apr 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Hi Jonas,

I spent a bit of time evaluating your C# WebServer and so far it seems to be perfect for an upcoming project I'm working on.
My only issue is that my company's lawyer (and my company by association) is not 100% comfortable integrating anything with LGPL into our project that is commercially distributed to our customers.
The performance and implementation of your WebServer seem like a perfect fit for me, so I'd hate (for my own sake) to have go searching for another .NET WebServer (and I don't have the time to dedicate to writing my own).

Is there any chance you might consider releasing your software under an additional software license that doesn't have any viral clauses?
From a corporate standpoint, licenses like the Apache License V2.0 are much friendlier and tend to be more commonly accepted.

I'm sure you have your reasons for initially releases the project under LGPL but I'm afraid that without a different license, I won't be able to use your project (despite how it perfectly fits my needs).

What are your thoughts on this issue?

I thank you for taking the time to read and respond,
Chris

Apr 10, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Hi Jonas,

One more thought, the SharpZipLib team released under GPL with an exception that was deemed acceptable by our lawyer. Any chance that if you don't feel comfortable adding an additional license, you might be willing to add a similar exception.

here is the excerpt from the SharpZipLib site (
http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SharpZipLib/):

-----------------------

The library is released under the GPL with the following exception:

Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.

As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. 
-----------------------

Thanks again,
Chris

Coordinator
Apr 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Well. SharpZipLib have an exception since they use GPL and not LGPL.
I think that LGPL is fair since you get countless of development hours for free.

Great summary of LGPL:
https://cajo.dev.java.net/license.html


LGPL, short version: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl.html

If you still want an alternative license, contact me privately for a price.
Apr 30, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Edited Apr 30, 2009 at 8:24 AM
Hello,

What are your thoughts on dual licensing like many other providers out there? One example is jquery, http://docs.jquery.com/Licensing, which dual licenses as GPL and MIT. Then you can serve both parties happily and, as shown by the success of many projects like this, still getting the kind of return necessary for the survival of the product.
Coordinator
Apr 30, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Edited Apr 30, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Project is now under Apache License v2.0.

Only thing I care about is that the copyright remains intact and that I get bugfixes/improvements back from the community.