XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>]

On Feb 6, 2005, at 1:25 PM, Robert Koberg wrote:

> Paul King wrote:
> > A move to apache would typically be welcomed by most commercial 
> > companies.
> > The feedback I have (mosty from Australia) on "GPL with library 
> > exception"
> > vs LGPL is that the jury is still out as to which is "safer" for 
> > commercial
> > offerings wanting to bundle xom. Of course you can always dual 
> > license it.
>
> Yep... I have talked to a few CEOs of medium sized companies and 
> VP/Directors for large companies. Mostly they just roll their eyes 
> when open source software comes up. It is easy to explain the Apache 
> style license. The (L)GPL style license is always qualified with, 
> "but... you should have your lawyers check it out..." Guess what their 
> response is...

I can confirm this.

Plus, for a software such as XOM that's primarily targetting ease of 
use with a shallow learning curve, it's not really helpful to have the 
legal department check licensing conditions and get a response some 
months later...  "Get started today and have something working 
tomorrow" is a rather typical IT case. Might as well work with 
something else that get's the job done faster and safer (in the legal 
sense). The license is part of the usability puzzle and Apache style 
would help here...

Wolfgang.