<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Control versus community</title>
	<atom:link href="http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/01/23/control-versus-community/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/01/23/control-versus-community/</link>
	<description>open source software innovation support centre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:30:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ross Gardler</title>
		<link>http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2010/01/23/control-versus-community/comment-page-1/#comment-257</link>
		<dc:creator>Ross Gardler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:27:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2010/01/23/control-versus-community/#comment-257</guid>
		<description>Another example of &quot;steps towards permissive licencing&quot; is Alfresco&#039;s recent announcement that they have moved from GPL to LGPL.

Interestingly John Newton (CTO of Alfresco) says:

&quot;Now we have grown the Alfresco brand considerably since its beginning, we believe that we can now move the Alfresco repository to the LGPL license... Compared to 2005 [when Alfresco switched to GPL], we see more of an opportunity to be a platform beyond individual applications, particularly with the emergence of CMIS. What the LGPL license provides over GPL is the ability to link in the Alfresco repository without affecting proprietary software that links it.&quot;

So why not go the full way and adopt a fully permissive licence? John says:

&quot;we currently have two main LGPL components - Hibernate for database access and JBPM for workflow - which prevent us from going to something like Apache or BSD licenses. However, this is something we may consider changing in the future. &quot;

(Quotes from http://newton.typepad.com/content/2010/01/a-shift-in-alfresco-community-license-to-lgpl.html)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another example of &#8220;steps towards permissive licencing&#8221; is Alfresco&#8217;s recent announcement that they have moved from GPL to LGPL.</p>
<p>Interestingly John Newton (CTO of Alfresco) says:</p>
<p>&#8220;Now we have grown the Alfresco brand considerably since its beginning, we believe that we can now move the Alfresco repository to the LGPL license&#8230; Compared to 2005 [when Alfresco switched to GPL], we see more of an opportunity to be a platform beyond individual applications, particularly with the emergence of CMIS. What the LGPL license provides over GPL is the ability to link in the Alfresco repository without affecting proprietary software that links it.&#8221;</p>
<p>So why not go the full way and adopt a fully permissive licence? John says:</p>
<p>&#8220;we currently have two main LGPL components &#8211; Hibernate for database access and JBPM for workflow &#8211; which prevent us from going to something like Apache or BSD licenses. However, this is something we may consider changing in the future. &#8221;</p>
<p>(Quotes from <a href="http://newton.typepad.com/content/2010/01/a-shift-in-alfresco-community-license-to-lgpl.html)" rel="nofollow" onclick="javascript:urchinTracker ('/outbound/comment/newton.typepad.com');">http://newton.typepad.com/content/2010/01/a-shift-in-alfresco-community-license-to-lgpl.html)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

