XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[John Cowan <jcowan AT reutershealth.com>]

Luca Passani scripsit:

> - GPL with Library Exception
>   Quite frankly, I think that's not an alternative *no matter what*. 

I disagree absolutely.

>   All of those open-source licences are virtually the same, since none 
> of them has been challenged in court.

Nor are they likely to be, for reasons explained below.

>   For example, in the unlikely event that someone tried to sell a 
> library which has a GPL license

(Minor point: Linux distro vendors sell such libraries every day.  I'll
assume you meant "incorporate a library with a GPL license into a
proprietary product.")

> and was brave (and rich) enough to bring the litigation to the end,
> a tribunal could end up declaring such a license void, assuming that
> the defendant has good enough lawyers.

Not so.  If the GPL were declared void, the defendant would have no leg to
stand on at all, because without the GPL, anyone copying or distributing
the software in any way at all is exposed to the full force of naked
copyright law and is clearly an infringer (and subject, in the U.S.,
to fines of up to US$50,000 per infringing act).  The last thing such a
defendant wants to do is bring a direct challenge to the GPL's validity,
which is *why* even the few cases of actual criminal infringement have,
according to the FSF, settled fast.

In the case of simple permissive licenses, there is very little
incentive for anyone to sue.

>   If you want to optimize your library for adoption (very important) 

It's important if that's what's most important to you.  Other people
have other values than "disseminate my code as widely as possible".
In particular, people who use the GPL or LGPL generally don't think
that way, or they would be using a permissive license.

> and not for abuse (which would be a side effect of popularity, by the
> way), you would better stick to one of the well-known licences (GPL,
> LGPL, Apache, MPL, BSD).

There will always be particular licenses that people refuse to use out
of fear.  I suspect (but can't prove, of course), that most such people
fear *all* free software however licensed.

> In other words, imagine that we all come the conclusion that "GPL with
> Library Exception" is the best possible choice for this project in
> terms of balance between everyone's freedom, BUT the programmer who
> would like to adopt it has to stick to company politics that says "no
> GPL". This would effectively mean that the  programmer is not allowed
> to adopt XOM since his company's legal department would not take the
> risk with a lesser known license and they have no cycles to evaluate
> a relatively unknown GPL-style license (in spite of the fact that it
> is 100% paranoia we are talking about).

Hard luck for him and his employers.  They always have the alternative
of redoing it themselves, probably not as well.  It's a business
decision whether evaluating the license is cheaper or more expensive
than reimplementing XOM.  Also, as Michael Kay says, people can pay
ERH for exceptions.

>  Also, I googled for "GPL with Library Exception" and the first 2 hits
> were the archives of the XOM-interest mailing list. This is not
> promising.

Google for "license of Guile" instead.

-- 
A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want         John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it                 jcowan AT reutershealth.com
isn't a man.    --Jewish saying                 http://www.reutershealth.com