[OWASP-LEADERS] RE: License question

David Raphael david.raphael at ceterum.net
Fri Nov 28 15:38:46 EST 2003

Well, oPortal's external libraries WILL be LGPL'ed.  Currently we do  
not have the portlet API released.  Therefore there is no issue at the  

If there are currently any API's that need to be relicensed, then I am  
fully supportive of those licenses being changed.  I really do not care  
if the whole of oPortal is relicensed to LGPL.  If there is some  
condition that warrants this, then I am ok with 100% license change -  
and this should be acceptable with the FSF as well.

David Raphael
oPortal Leader

On Nov 28, 2003, at 12:03 PM, dinis at ddplus.net wrote:

> Hello fellow Owasp leaders
> I am new to this list so this is my first post. I'm
> collaborating with Owasp in its .Net development
> efforts.
> I would like to add the following comments about this
> thread:
> 1) I think that oPortal should be released under the
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php)
> and not the GPL
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php).
> The "Lesser" version the the GPL allows the use of the
> oPortal code together with other 'proprietary libraries'
> 2) My rationaly is: "what oPortal needs now is users
> and eyeballs, so the easier it is to use its code the
> more it will be used".
> 3) In my view the Open Source's copyrights are only
> usefull for one thing: to avoid somebody packaging it
> as a proprietary application and copyright its source
> code to it. Apart from that, all other Open Source
> benefits (Eyeballs looking at bugs, feedback from users
> and code contribution) will only happen if the Open
> Source application is actually used, AND, the project's
> leaders are good, fair and reliable.
> 4) I'm abit confused about his initial question:
>    - "...could custom portlets that we create have to
> be released under GPL..." - what does he mean by Custom
> portlets in oPortal? I couldn't find any references in
> www.owasp.org to portlets (see
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF 
> -8&q=portlets+site%3Awww.owasp.org). If he means by
> 'custom portlets', changes to the oportal source, code
> then theoretically he should publish those changes and
> sent them to the oPortal developers. But if by 'custom
> portlets' he means custom XSL templates, or new DTDs
> that convert his XML content into his design, then I
> think that he shouldn't need to make that information
> available
>    - "Would a site that uses oPortal come under GPL" -
> If by this he means the content of the site, then (in
> my view) that content is copyrighted to him and he has
> no need to distribute (the XML files) under GPL
> 5) I'm also a bit confused by Rogan Dawes' (ZA -
> Johannesburg <rdawes at deloitte.co.za>) comment "...the
> other thing is that the GPL only comes into play when
> you actually distribute something.If you only use it in
> house, and never distribute, there is no requirement to
> release source at all...." (quote from his email).
> Surelly by putting a package available for download in
> SourceFourge makes thatdistributed to anybody that
> requests it? The fact that the package (i.e. software,
> i.e. code) is a web application (versus an interactive
> desktop application) doesn't make a diference. In my
> view any piece of code can be GPLed since it is the
> owner of that code that decides how to manage its
> copyright. As long as the code distribution respects
> the GPL then it is a GPL code. Rogan, if you are
> reading this, I would be very interrested in reading
> the discussions about this issue (i.e. "...are web
> applications distributed or not...") which you
> mentioned in your email
> Mark, since his question is quite relevant and surelly
> other people have the same issues, maybe be best thing
> would be to create a FAQ about the oPortal licence and
> its possible usage.
> just my two cents....
> Best regards
> Dinis Cruz
> .Net Security Consultant
> DDPlus (www.ddplus.net)
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:11:49 +0200, "Dawes, Rogan (ZA -
> Johannesburg)" wrote
> Message
> the
> other thing is that the GPL only comes into play when
> you actually distribute
> something.
> If you
> only use it in house, and never distribute, there is no
> requirement to release
> source at all. This has led to numerous discussions
> especially in the context of
> web applications, which are NOT actually distributed.
> (IMO)
> Rogan
>   -----Original Message-----From: Mark Curphey
>   [mailto:mark at curphey.com] Sent: 28 November 2003
> 03:18
>   PMTo: 'Aral Balkan';
>   owasp-leaders at lists.sourceforge.netSubject:
>   License question
>   I am
>   not a licensing expert but I know we have some people
> on the project who are
>   pretty well up on this sort of thing. Guys, any
> comments ?
>   From: Aral Balkan
>   [mailto:aral at bitsandpixels.co.uk] Sent: Friday,
> November 28, 2003
>   5:54 AMTo: owasp at owasp.org
>   Hi,
>   I believe
>   I have a firm grasp of the GPL license as it pertains
> to software itself,
>   however in this case, if we were to use oPortal,
> could custom portlets that we
>   create have to be released under GPL? Would a site
> that uses oPortal come
>   under GPL?
>   Thanks,
>   Aral
>   --  ___(  Aral Balkan 
>   )_____________________________________________ 
> Managing
>   Director.. Bits & Pixels     :
>   www.BitsAndPixels.co.uk        Dir.
>   Ed. Content... Ultrashock        :
>   www.Ultrashock.com               
>   Author............. Friends of ED     :
>   www.FriendsOfEd.com                           
>   Macromedia DevNet :
> www.macromedia.com/devnet  Director........... London
>   MMUG       :
>   www.mmug.co.uk                            
> __________________________________________________________________
> Important Notice: This email is subject to important
> restrictions,
> qualifications and disclaimers ("the Disclaimer") that
> must be accessed and read
> by clicking here or by copying and pasting the
> following address into your
> Internet browser's address bar:
> http://www.Deloitte.co.za/Disc.htm. The Disclaimer is
> deemed to form part of the content of this email in
> terms of Section 11 of the
> Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 25 of
> 2002. If you cannot access
> the Disclaimer, please obtain a copy thereof from us by
> sending an email to ClientServiceCentre at Deloitte.co.za.
> ----------------------------------------
> Scanned by Emailfiltering.co.uk
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Owasp-leaders mailing list
> Owasp-leaders at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/owasp-leaders

More information about the OWASP-Leaders mailing list