Re: a comment [COAS]

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@mit.edu>]

SolariS@cicei.ulpgc.es wrote:
>At the COAS site, Caldera says something quite ambiguous:
>
>(1). That tools will be contributed to the 'Linux community' and
>
>and this:
>
>    After the administration tools are developed, they will be given
>    to  the Linux community for their use.  In fact, all of the work
>    done on the core  administration  system  will be contributed to
>    the Linux community under the GNU General Public License  (GPL).
>==> However,  COAS  developers  can release individual tools under a
>    different license, if they choose.
>    
>It looks Caldera  is  looking  for  brain-power  to develop a system
>which it'll use to base other utils  which  they'll  sell.   Typical
>Caldera.

Actually, the licensing system makes a fair deal of sense.  The core,
and all modules that come with it, are GPL.  The libraries are LGPL.

IMO, any tool which did _not_ allow developers to release non-GPL'ed
modules would be basically broken.  If I were developing a commercial
product, I might legitimately want to write a configuration module
without having to release it under the GPL.  "This is a feature."

Even assuming that your analysis is correct, and that the free
portions of COAS provide a great framework on which Caldera can base
commercial utilities -- that great framwork can also be the basis
for free utilities of comparable function.  Should we elect to
use COAS in SEUL, we get to keep what we write.

So let's take a look at COAS and Linuxconf themselves, and see if
either of them looks as though it may turn out to be what we want.
I'm currently impressed my Linuxconf's current versatility, but much
happier with COAS's clean API and archetecture.  

Let's evaluate these tools on their own merits, and not on the
perceived motivations of their developers. :)

Yours,

-- 
Nick Mathewson
 nickm@mit.edu
===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===