On 24/03/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do you any links to the relevant discussion (especially the "day one"
>  part)?

When the SourceForge projet was set up, LGPL was the license on the
tin.  It only changed two days ago.  Nobody has admitted to doing
that.  You'll note that I have made reference to the source forge
project on a number of occasions on this list and on cls.  Also
discussions on cls date back to 2000 and indicate the LGPL license.

Ah!  The wayback machine to the rescue:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020211054006/http://sourceforge.net/projects/swazoo/

Not quite 2000, but you can see that from that every version of the
page over many years clearly showed LGPL.  Note too that I was not a
project admin, so I had no way of setting the license or changing it.

I chose to work with the Swazoo HTTP server *because* it was under the
LGPL.  Had I not found such an HTTP server I would have started from
scratch as I have done for several other of my libraries (all of which
are under the LGPL).

>  Because while Janko's actions are certainly.... non-optimal,
>  he seems to indicate the exact opposite, i.e. that they didn't really
>  have a license, then you came and suggested it was LGPL and now claim
>  it conclusively is.

I think it would be rather disingenuous of Janko to suggest that I
have suddenly started saying that Swazoo is under the LGPL.  Janko's
MIT conversion is altogether far more sudden.

>  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
>  at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
>  code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
>  as the "software mugging" you describe.

If you look at the version history of Swazoo in the Cincom public
Store and at the archive of the Swazoo mailing list you'll see that I
wasn't just injecting a bit of code here and there :-)

All the best,
    Bruce
-- 
Make the most of your skills - with OpenSkills
http://www.openskills.org/