Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [junit] More modern license?

Expand Messages
  • Kent Beck
    Dear Jaroslav, Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 13, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Jaroslav,

      Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.

      Best regards,

      Kent Beck
      Three Rivers Consulting, Inc.

      On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:49 AM, jaroslavtulach wrote:

      > Hello JUnit guys.
      > I know my post is going to sound silly, but I'll try anyway.
      >
      > We have new lawyers. Our new lawyers seem to be concerned about the JUnit license. True, JUnit's use of Common Public License is unique and sort of archaic. I don't know about any other (important) project using this license anymore.
      >
      > Right now we are holding our release and getting ready to remove JUnit from our standard installation. Silly, I know, JUnit is necessary part of any serious Java development, but there is not much we can do. Except to ask:
      >
      > Don't you want to relicense JUnit to some more commonly used license? EPL would be fine. At least I have not heard any complain about EPL from our new lawyers yet. Dual licensing to CPL & EPL probably too.
      >
      > Thanks for reading my post and sorry for bothering. It just make me sad to see our software being crippled due to artificial licensing constraints.
      >
      > On behalf of about 800000 active users of NetBeans IDE,
      > Jaroslav Tulach
      > NetBeans Platform Architect
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • jaroslavtulach
      Thanks for your fast reply Kent. I am glad we have an option to pay for a better license, especially one without the patent clause[1]. Now I fully understand
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 14, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for your fast reply Kent. I am glad we have an option to pay for a better license, especially one without the patent clause[1]. Now I fully understand why our lawyers object against CPL and I am surprised that Sun lawyers previously accepted that clause.

        Btw. I am trying to understand ways to make open source projects profitable[2]. So far I thought only GPL with commercial licensing is an option, but the CPL trick is also cute.

        I have one question, however: I can imagine buying a commercial license is good for closed source projects. But how can a commercial license be suitable for an open source project like NetBeans? If we want to stay open source, we cannot have a commercial license on one of our libraries! We need to have an open source one. We need to let 3rd parties to take parts of our IDE and use them in an open source manner. I am sure we are not the first ones to have this problem, and you have some solution, right?

        Thanks in advance for your answer. Meanwhile we'll start shaping up description of our needs with our lawyers.
        -jt

        [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License#cite_note-patent_litigation_change-2
        [2] http://wiki.apidesign.org/wiki/WhyGPL

        --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, Kent Beck <kentb@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Jaroslav,
        >
        > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.
        >
        > Best regards,
        >
        > Kent Beck
        > Three Rivers Consulting, Inc.
        >
        > On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:49 AM, jaroslavtulach wrote:
        >
        > > Hello JUnit guys.
        > > I know my post is going to sound silly, but I'll try anyway.
        > >
        > > We have new lawyers. Our new lawyers seem to be concerned about the JUnit license. True, JUnit's use of Common Public License is unique and sort of archaic. I don't know about any other (important) project using this license anymore.
        > >
        > > Right now we are holding our release and getting ready to remove JUnit from our standard installation. Silly, I know, JUnit is necessary part of any serious Java development, but there is not much we can do. Except to ask:
        > >
        > > Don't you want to relicense JUnit to some more commonly used license? EPL would be fine. At least I have not heard any complain about EPL from our new lawyers yet. Dual licensing to CPL & EPL probably too.
        > >
        > > Thanks for reading my post and sorry for bothering. It just make me sad to see our software being crippled due to artificial licensing constraints.
        > >
        > > On behalf of about 800000 active users of NetBeans IDE,
        > > Jaroslav Tulach
        > > NetBeans Platform Architect
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • milestravisparker
        The following posts might be helpful.. http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 14, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          The following posts might be helpful..

          http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
          http://forums.pentaho.com/showthread.php?69944-License-upgrade-from-CPL-to-EPL

          IANAL either but the section 7 language does appear to give any contributor the right to release under a successor license, and EPL is a successor.

          Hope you guys can get it sorted out!

          --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, Kent Beck <kentb@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Jaroslav,
          >
          > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.
          >
        • jaroslavtulach
          Very interesting, thanks for sharing the links! ... It has not come to my mind[1] that EPL1.0 supercedes CPL1.0! When I asked for more modern license I did
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 15, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Very interesting, thanks for sharing the links!

            > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/

            It has not come to my mind[1] that EPL1.0 supercedes CPL1.0! When I asked for "more modern license" I did not know how close I was. Proliferation of various open source licenses is bad and I am glad upgrading to EPL1.0 is allowed by CPL1.0. It can safe a lot of troubles.

            Now, when it is clear that EPL1.0 is the natural evolution step, I can offer some help. Kent mentioned that he has no capacity to change the license himself. I can help changing all the JUnit sources and create a patch. The rest would be just a matter of incorporating my changes into main source line and releasing binaries for under the new license...

            Shall we walk this path?
            -jt

            [1] The license would rather be called CPL1.1 if "the superceeding" was the plan from begining...

            --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, "milestravisparker" <milesparker@...> wrote:
            >
            > The following posts might be helpful..
            >
            > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
            > http://forums.pentaho.com/showthread.php?69944-License-upgrade-from-CPL-to-EPL
            >
            > IANAL either but the section 7 language does appear to give any contributor the right to release under a successor license, and EPL is a successor.
            >
            > Hope you guys can get it sorted out!
            >
            > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, Kent Beck <kentb@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Dear Jaroslav,
            > >
            > > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.
            > >
            >
          • mmilinkov
            I just wanted to reiterate what others have pointed out. Because the EPL has superseded the CPL as its new version, it is not necessary to seek the approval of
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 16, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I just wanted to reiterate what others have pointed out. Because the EPL has superseded the CPL as its new version, it is not necessary to seek the approval of past contributors. You can simply re-license the code under the EPL as other projects such as Mondrian and olap4j[1] have done.

              Obviously, the license is your decision. I just want to clarify that the burden of moving to the EPL is relatively low.

              See the second last paragraph of Section 7 of the CPL and EPL.

              Mike Milinkovich
              Executive Director,
              Eclipse Foundation

              [1] http://forums.pentaho.com/showthread.php?69944-License-upgrade-from-CPL-to-EPL

              --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, Kent Beck <kentb@...> wrote:
              > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the
              > license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and
              > notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have
              > been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted
              > to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.
              >
              > Best regards,
              >
              > Kent Beck
              > Three Rivers Consulting, Inc.
            • Mike Forsberg
              As the text of an e-mail does not carry the facial expressions and tonality of the spoken word, I m not sure if your sarcastic or not. (Even though, I do have
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 16, 2011
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                As the text of an e-mail does not carry the facial expressions and tonality
                of the spoken word, I'm not sure if your sarcastic or not. (Even though, I
                do have a reduced ability of this compared to others.)

                Assuming that you were serious....

                I can not speak for the authors of the language, nor do I care to. Yet,
                I've always been under the impression that to transfer a fork of an API
                under a new fresh license, a person/group would have to start without any of
                the original code. I'm no lawyer, but to claim that a patch to a given set
                of source code could release without holding onto the original license might
                not be possible under the copy left provision.

                As a plea from myself, others may join in...

                Please don't make my life more troublesome by introducing a freshly grown
                JUnit-esque API, that some corporate manager like. While as a developer, I
                will see some uniqueness that will make my code writing experience less
                enjoyable.

                But as The Dude would say to me... "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like,
                your opinion, man."


                On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 9:14 AM, jaroslavtulach
                <jaroslav.tulach@...>wrote:

                >
                >
                > Very interesting, thanks for sharing the links!
                >
                > >
                > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
                >
                > It has not come to my mind[1] that EPL1.0 supercedes CPL1.0! When I asked
                > for "more modern license" I did not know how close I was. Proliferation of
                > various open source licenses is bad and I am glad upgrading to EPL1.0 is
                > allowed by CPL1.0. It can safe a lot of troubles.
                >
                > Now, when it is clear that EPL1.0 is the natural evolution step, I can
                > offer some help. Kent mentioned that he has no capacity to change the
                > license himself. I can help changing all the JUnit sources and create a
                > patch. The rest would be just a matter of incorporating my changes into main
                > source line and releasing binaries for under the new license...
                >
                > Shall we walk this path?
                > -jt
                >
                > [1] The license would rather be called CPL1.1 if "the superceeding" was the
                > plan from begining...
                >
                > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com <junit%40yahoogroups.com>,
                > "milestravisparker" <milesparker@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > The following posts might be helpful..
                > >
                > >
                > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
                > >
                > http://forums.pentaho.com/showthread.php?69944-License-upgrade-from-CPL-to-EPL
                > >
                > > IANAL either but the section 7 language does appear to give any
                > contributor the right to release under a successor license, and EPL is a
                > successor.
                > >
                > > Hope you guys can get it sorted out!
                > >
                > > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com <junit%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent Beck
                > <kentb@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Dear Jaroslav,
                > > >
                > > > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license
                > for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying
                > contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through
                > Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please
                > have your lawyers contact me for details.
                > > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Kent Beck
                Just to make sure y all know this isn t hanging, we re discussing what to do next. Kent ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 21, 2011
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Just to make sure y'all know this isn't hanging, we're discussing what to do next.

                  Kent

                  On Jan 15, 2011, at 7:14 AM, jaroslavtulach wrote:

                  > Very interesting, thanks for sharing the links!
                  >
                  > > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
                  >
                  > It has not come to my mind[1] that EPL1.0 supercedes CPL1.0! When I asked for "more modern license" I did not know how close I was. Proliferation of various open source licenses is bad and I am glad upgrading to EPL1.0 is allowed by CPL1.0. It can safe a lot of troubles.
                  >
                  > Now, when it is clear that EPL1.0 is the natural evolution step, I can offer some help. Kent mentioned that he has no capacity to change the license himself. I can help changing all the JUnit sources and create a patch. The rest would be just a matter of incorporating my changes into main source line and releasing binaries for under the new license...
                  >
                  > Shall we walk this path?
                  > -jt
                  >
                  > [1] The license would rather be called CPL1.1 if "the superceeding" was the plan from begining...
                  >
                  > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, "milestravisparker" <milesparker@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The following posts might be helpful..
                  > >
                  > > http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2009/04/16/one-small-step-towards-reducing-license-proliferation/
                  > > http://forums.pentaho.com/showthread.php?69944-License-upgrade-from-CPL-to-EPL
                  > >
                  > > IANAL either but the section 7 language does appear to give any contributor the right to release under a successor license, and EPL is a successor.
                  > >
                  > > Hope you guys can get it sorted out!
                  > >
                  > > --- In junit@yahoogroups.com, Kent Beck <kentb@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Dear Jaroslav,
                  > > >
                  > > > Thank you for the message. It is not practical to change the license for JUnit because of the difficult of identifying and notifying contributors. Commercial licenses are available and have been sold through Three Rivers Consulting, Inc. with terms crafted to meet your needs. Please have your lawyers contact me for details.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.