On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Bruce Badger <bwbadger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jason,
>
>  I seem to have picked up quite a burden here.  I must answer all your
>  questions and satisfy your demands for proof with "totally conclusive"
>  evidence?

You don't have to do anything.  But you present a mail here clearly to
appeal to the community.  If you want my sympathy I want to see what
you're talking about. :)  You don't have to prove anything to me.  I
can go dig around in the mail list archives myself, I was just hoping
you would give a pointer to start from.

>Why?  I think the sources of information I have already
>  linked to would answer all your questions.  You tone makes me think
>  you are trying to trip me up and gather information to support making
>  my code be forcibly licensed as MIT, which I don't want.

I explained why I didn't personally find the link you gave me
conclusive.  And you are being a bit paranoid about me "forcing" you
to do anything.  It's not my license.  I just like the truth, what
ever it is, to be on the table.  There appears to be a disagreement
between your view and Janko's.  I didn't ask Janko anything because he
hasn't posted to this thread.

>  I can not prove to you what my intent was while I was working to
>  improve the Swazoo HTTP server, but I refer you to the version control
>  history and the mailing lists so you can draw your own conclusions.

What does your intention have to do with it?  I'm quite certain your
intention was for the code to be LGPL.

> I
>  assert that I started work on Swazoo because it was licensed under the
>  LGPL and contributed work under that license in good faith.  I think
>  my track record backs me up here.

I believe you.  But the other guys may have been working under good
faith that it *wasn't* LGPL.

>  Re SourceForge, I don't have the complete list of licenses that could
>  be selected for projects on SourceForge back in 2000, but I'm sure you
>  can see some (most, all?) of the choices via the wayback machine if
>  you care to look.

Good idea, I should have thought of that. :)

>  FWIW I'm sure they had a policy of including the
>  OSI approved licenses even then and I recall setting up a project and
>  seeing quite a few licences to choose from (of cource, I chose the
>  LGPL for my library project).

Ok, well that's why I asked: because I didn't remember (but I thought
there was something about this).