Railo speaks...

[Adam Cameron]

In case you missed it:

http://blog.getrailo.com/post.cfm/a-message-from-the-majority-shareholder-of-the-railo-company

And my initial take on it:

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/05/railo-speaks-at-long-last.html

-- 

Adam

[Daniel Jansen]

I assume the LAS will need to get legal advice before posting any response, but I'm going to ask anyway: is there any response that LAS are able to make publicly at this time to this article?

Regards,

Daniel Jansen

Web Design Batemans Bay

[imad...@gmail.com]

nice ... 

http://blog.getrailo.com/post.cfm/a-message-from-the-majority-shareholder-of-the-railo-company

[Jon Clausen]

Railo 4.2 was published with a GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

It seems to me that, unless there’s Non-OSS code in Lucee, the fork is on the up-and-up and any claim to violations of IP rights is smoke and mirrors.  The use of the Railo name in the license is a component of the license, itself.   Non-compete clauses would be a separate issue, but the use of the source code to create a derivative software product is legal. 

Jon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/c9d512cd-8ccf-4516-8335-9302180e70e8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Alex Skinner]

Official response as follows

We have read the blog post by 4FTI company. We were surprised and disappointed by its contents which we do not agree with and also the inconvenience of its timing not least that TRC is a UK Company and that it is a bank holiday in the UK today. We will review its contents and post an extended response this week. 

We would like to reiterate for the avoidance of doubt that for those currently using Lucee, the Lucee project is a perfectly legitimate fork of the Railo 4.2 LGPL project.

Many thanks

Alex Skinner

On behalf of Lucee Association Switzerland

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/c9d512cd-8ccf-4516-8335-9302180e70e8%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Alex Skinner
Managing Director

Pixl8 Interactive, 3 Tun Yard, Peardon Street, London SW8 3HT, United Kingdom T: +44 [0] 845 260 0726• W: www.pixl8.co.uk• E: in...@pixl8.co.uk

Follow us on: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED - This e-mail and any attachment is intended solely for the addressee, is strictly confidential and may also be subject to legal, professional or other privilege or may be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you are not the addressee please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please email it back to the sender and then immediately permanently delete it. Pixl8 Interactive Ltd Registered in England. Registered number: 04336501. Registered office: 8 Spur Road, Cosham, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 3EB

[Terry Whitney]

This reminds me of the various legal spats that have happened in opensource over the years.

Okay, so lets say Lucee can not be forked (for sake of argument) by the folks that created Railo, they are not slaves and not barred from contributing to any open source project.

So lets see exactly what happens.. Lucee gets sacked, suddenly "Lucee2" (or what ever you want to call it) suddenly gets born, and again the progress marches on.

maybe the company would have been better served hiring lawyers to understand the legal ramifications of purchasing an Open Source project instead of a knee jerk reaction to something that they have lost control over. 

[AJ Mercer]

maybe if the legal side gets too hard and too messy, Lucee could drop .cfm/.cfc and focus on .lucee as a new language, as a fresh start and not have the backwards compatiblity issues of old CFML.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/8043d3b1-6781-4b50-94aa-be61a644c7c6%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

AJ Mercer
<webonix:net strength="Industrial" /> | <webonix:org community="Open" />
http://twitter.com/webonix

[imad...@gmail.com]

GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

Le lundi 4 mai 2015 11:34:39 UTC+2, Adam Cameron a écrit :

[imad...@gmail.com]

GNU license

Le lundi 4 mai 2015 11:34:39 UTC+2, Adam Cameron a écrit :

[Jochem van Dieten]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jon Clausen wrote:

Railo 4.2 was published with a GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

It seems to me that, unless there’s Non-OSS code in Lucee, the fork is on the up-and-up and any claim to violations of IP rights is smoke and mirrors. 

The initial 4.5 fork is probably on the up-and-up from a source code licensing perspective (though I haven't looked at the actual diffs).

However, I have little doubt that much of what was released as Lucee 5 was developed by people employed by RT GmbH. I don't know about Swiss labour laws, but I wouldn't bet against the IP on that part of the code not being the private property of the developers, but of RT GmbH. At that time Railo GmbH (and depending on the contracts those people individually) were under contract with TRC. Depending on the actual contracts (which we don't know and probably won't know unless the court publishes them) between the parties that may mean that the IP was with TRC. If that is the case, the selective quote from the actual contract in the blogpost suggests RT GmbH was not authorised to release it.

There are 3 if's there, but if TRC can prove all this the unreleased code is essentially non-OSS and the case is then even covered in the GPL FAQ:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

If, and again this is a big if, this is proven that is also an issue for the people using Lucee. Since in this hypothetical scenario RT GmbH never had title of the IP it couldn't release it and license it so in that case running Lucee is just as illegal as running a pirated Windows or Photoshop.

All the other stuff about non-compete clauses and acting in "bad faith" should not affect users of Lucee, but may affect the people developing Lucee.

Jochem

--

Jochem van Dieten
http://jochem.vandieten.net/

[Chris Blackwell]

I think the best thing the community could do right now is to stop speculating. It will do nothing but spread FUD.

For better or worse this is something that LAS, RT and TRC must sort out between themselves.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CABPCP-2Ng7BkXd3Vka3xrXcL5R1ukhx4UPOGdhzEUuANQhQx_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nando Breiter]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jon Clausen <jon_c...@silowebworks.com> wrote:

Railo 4.2 was published with a GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

It seems to me that, unless there’s Non-OSS code in Lucee, the fork is on the up-and-up and any claim to violations of IP rights is smoke and mirrors.  The use of the Railo name in the license is a component of the license, itself.  

The name "Railo" in any form does not appear in the license text referenced in the link above ...

 

Non-compete clauses would be a separate issue, but the use of the source code to create a derivative software product is legal. 

From a careful reading of the 4FTI blog post, it seems their contention is that they wanted to create a commercial version of Railo with release 5, and they think they own some of the code that has gone into Lucee 5. That said, some of their statements seem somewhat baseless, for instance:

"However, Lucee was founded by the same people who still own and operate Railo Technologies GmbH (“RT”), a part owner of TRC.  And they used the Railo platform to do it."

... used the Railo platform??? What does that mean? Railo codebase? Railo trademarks? Railo community? Railo funding? Couldn't be the 4.2 codebase, because that's open source under GNU. The Lucee team has not used Railo trademarks or the Railo name, have made very scant mention on the Railo mailing list. They certainly don't seem to be getting funded anymore from TRC.

Here's another statement:

'Among other things, RT (including its owners and management)  “cannot license the Railo Server or perform any services in connection with or related to the Railo Server for or on behalf of any third party except as expressly authorized by TRC”'

Railo server? What is that in the light of the GNU license if the code base is forked and the name changed? The 4FTI blog post makes the contention that they, through TRC, own the "Railo Server", but my reading of the GNU license text seems to forbid this:

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom of use,

not price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that

you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge

for this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get

it if you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of

it in new free programs; and that you are informed that you can do

these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid

distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these

rights.

Here's what I think is happening. Even if there is thin legal basis to their claims, 4FTI most likely has much more money to pay lawyers. It seems to be an intimidation tactic to me. 

Here's another quote from the blog post:

"The open source version of Railo is available to the world. But that world does not include RT or any of its principals ..." (specifically referring to Gert and Micha).

 

The GNU license seems to indicate exactly the opposite. There are certainly companies throughout the world that have supported the development of open source software, but that does not give them the right to claim they own it. 

"The use and development of Railo to release what is now being “packaged” as Lucee 5 was not authorized by TRC and, therefore, remains the property of TRC."

"For this reason, we are compelled to provide notice that any use of Railo by Lucee or by its membership may constitute an unlawful infringement of TRC’s intellectual property rights." 

Really? So if you think I'm a Lucee member because Aria Media is a corporate sponsor of Lucee, you are telling me that I cannot continue to use Railo because it's an unlawful infringement of TRC's intellectual property rights? That's quite a stretch, completely contrary to the GNU license Railo was released under.

So bring it on asshole. There are hundreds of people and companies still using Railo that you might consider to be Lucee "members" if joining the mailing list is sufficient. Sue us all for unlawful infringement of TRC's intellectual property rights.

What a bloody jerk. 

Nando

Jon

On May 4, 2015 at 8:30:54 AM, imad...@gmail.com (imad...@gmail.com) wrote:

nice ... 

http://blog.getrailo.com/post.cfm/a-message-from-the-majority-shareholder-of-the-railo-company

Le lundi 4 mai 2015 11:34:39 UTC+2, Adam Cameron a écrit :

In case you missed it:

http://blog.getrailo.com/post.cfm/a-message-from-the-majority-shareholder-of-the-railo-company

And my initial take on it:

http://blog.adamcameron.me/2015/05/railo-speaks-at-long-last.html

-- 

Adam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/c9d512cd-8ccf-4516-8335-9302180e70e8%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/etPan.55476ac2.339c7f8b.16ed0%40jonclausen-mbp.local.

[Terry Whitney]

Reminds of the whole SCO vs Novell, then ultimately SCO vs IBM.

SCO ultimately lost the case as they , themselves released some articles of code under the GPL, and that the programmers in question where free to spend their time, as they wished. 

The EU is more anti-trust than the United States, and I highly doubt this will do anything besides further drive support for lucee.

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 5:34:39 AM UTC-4, Adam Cameron wrote:

[Malcolm O'Keeffe]

As a Director on the TRC Board of Directors, and representative of Blue River (a minority shareholder in TRC), I'd like to emphasize a couple key points: 

1. The blog post in question is inappropriate. It's the opinion of 4FTi, but NOT of TRC (and certainly not of Blue River). 

Because there has been no internal TRC discussion regarding this blog post, the blog post should not have been made using the Railo brand and website. In short, 4FTi should not have posted their opinions on the TRC blog, as the blog post simply reflects the opinion of one of 3 shareholders in TRC.  

2. As a minority shareholder in TRC, we do not agree with 4FTi's characterization of events, nor with their conclusions about "what this means for Lucee".  

We will attempt to come to some agreement with 4FTi and RT regarding this issue, but past attempts have been less than fruitful, so we'll see what solutions might actually be possible. 

Malcolm O'Keeffe

Blue River/Mura CMS

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAGHrs%3D92mbgHVYJTEAObrW_4dfz77N2kyjzYBYf3fxCownYk_w%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Malcolm O'Keeffe
Blue River Interactive Group

(916) 608-8608 - office
(916) 834-3370 - cell

www.blueriver.com - Website Design and Development
www.getmura.com - Open Source CMS

[Hugo Ahlenius]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lu...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lu...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of AJ Mercer
> maybe if the legal side gets too hard and too messy, Lucee could drop
> .cfm/.cfc and focus on .lucee as a new language, as a fresh start and not have
> the backwards compatiblity issues of old CFML.

No. The file extension, compatibility and dialect is irrelevant, it is the code base that matters.

[Brad Wood]

> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

>  just as illegal as running a pirated Windows or Photoshop.

This doesn't seem very applicable, Jochem.  Frankly it assumes TRC was in possession of the code (if it even existed) in the first place.  I can't claim someone "stole" something from me that I never had.  Can TRC show specifically where they paid $$ in agreement for Railo 5 to be delivered?  I contract for Ortus Solutions, but I create a lot of modules for ColdBox on the side that Ortus has zero claim to. It would be silly for Ortus to claim I 'stole' those modules when they never paid me to write them in the first place.  And if I ever left Ortus, I would be free to release my own BradBox fork containing whatever work I owned. (I'm not planning that though :)

All this is a little silly anyway.  Lucee is open source under the same copy-left license as Railo.  If TRC were interested in features now released as part of Lucee, they could simply merge them into the project!  Lucee is a non-profit (unlike TRC) so you can't even claim they are profiting from the code.  My only explanation for this is that 4F unhappy with the fork and trying to come up with a way to hurt it.

Thanks!

~Brad

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 12:56:19 PM UTC-5, Jochem van Dieten wrote:

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jon Clausen wrote:

Railo 4.2 was published with a GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

It seems to me that, unless there’s Non-OSS code in Lucee, the fork is on the up-and-up and any claim to violations of IP rights is smoke and mirrors. 

The initial 4.5 fork is probably on the up-and-up from a source code licensing perspective (though I haven't looked at the actual diffs).

However, I have little doubt that much of what was released as Lucee 5 was developed by people employed by RT GmbH. I don't know about Swiss labour laws, but I wouldn't bet against the IP on that part of the code not being the private property of the developers, but of RT GmbH. At that time Railo GmbH (and depending on the contracts those peoplbetween e individually) were under contract with TRC. Depending on the actual contracts (which we don't know and probably won't know unless the court publishes them) the parties that may mean that the IP was with TRC. If that is the case, the selective quote from the actual contract in the blogpost suggests RT GmbH was not authorised to release it.

There are 3 if's there, but if TRC can prove all this the unreleased code is essentially non-OSS and the case is then even covered in the GPL FAQ:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

If, and again this is a big if, this is proven that is also an issue for the people using Lucee. Since in this hypothetical scenario RT GmbH never had title of the IP it couldn't release it and license it so in that case running Lucee is just as illegal as running a pirated Windows or Photoshop.

All the other stuff about non-compete clauses and acting in "bad faith" should not affect users of Lucee, but may affect the people developing Lucee.

[Nando Breiter]

All this is a little silly anyway.  Lucee is open source under the same copy-left license as Railo.  If TRC were interested in features now released as part of Lucee, they could simply merge them into the project!

Excellent point Brad!! But to me, it's more than a little silly. Someone's trying to intimidate the CFML community with threats of legal action, and I'm fed up with this sort of behavior. If 4FTI had an actual case, there would be no need to wait 5 months and only then create a threatening blog post to the community at large claiming that use of Railo "may constitute an unlawful infringement of TRC’s intellectual property rights." What the fuck is that! An actual case would be much more straightforward. Go to the lawyer, explain the situation, lawyer drafts a letter, and in one or two weeks, either the parties are heading to court or they settle. That would have happened back in January or February at the most. 

This is blackmail, pure and simple, aimed at the CFML community.

The problem here isn't who owns code. As you so rightly point out, if TRC wants the code that they think is theirs, they can simply take it and use it from the Lucee source under the GNU license. The problem is that some developers might think there is substance to these claims, and form an opinion based on them. 

 

 My only explanation for this is that 4F unhappy with the fork and trying to come up with a way to hurt it.

... and hurt not only Lucee, but the folks behind it and anyone using it, or even associated with it. I'm not buying into this crap. If the guy behind 4FTI, Simon Slooten, want to sue us all for "unlawful infringement of TRC’s intellectual property rights", he should just get on with it.

Like I said, the guy is a jerk. I don't have to know the backstory to get that. All I need is that "unlawful infringement of TRC’s intellectual property rights" sentence aimed at all of us.

Nando

 

Thanks!

~Brad

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 12:56:19 PM UTC-5, Jochem van Dieten wrote:

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Jon Clausen wrote:

Railo 4.2 was published with a GNU license:  https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt    

It seems to me that, unless there’s Non-OSS code in Lucee, the fork is on the up-and-up and any claim to violations of IP rights is smoke and mirrors. 

The initial 4.5 fork is probably on the up-and-up from a source code licensing perspective (though I haven't looked at the actual diffs).

However, I have little doubt that much of what was released as Lucee 5 was developed by people employed by RT GmbH. I don't know about Swiss labour laws, but I wouldn't bet against the IP on that part of the code not being the private property of the developers, but of RT GmbH. At that time Railo GmbH (and depending on the contracts those peoplbetween e individually) were under contract with TRC. Depending on the actual contracts (which we don't know and probably won't know unless the court publishes them) the parties that may mean that the IP was with TRC. If that is the case, the selective quote from the actual contract in the blogpost suggests RT GmbH was not authorised to release it.

There are 3 if's there, but if TRC can prove all this the unreleased code is essentially non-OSS and the case is then even covered in the GPL FAQ:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

If, and again this is a big if, this is proven that is also an issue for the people using Lucee. Since in this hypothetical scenario RT GmbH never had title of the IP it couldn't release it and license it so in that case running Lucee is just as illegal as running a pirated Windows or Photoshop.

All the other stuff about non-compete clauses and acting in "bad faith" should not affect users of Lucee, but may affect the people developing Lucee.

Jochem

--

Jochem van Dieten
http://jochem.vandieten.net/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/bc6b4e11-fa9b-40ee-b3ca-ba98c502a821%40googlegroups.com.

[Jochem van Dieten]

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Brad Wood <bdw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

>  just as illegal as running a pirated Windows or Photoshop.

This doesn't seem very applicable, Jochem.  

I have explicitly stated what premisses needs to hold for that scenario to be applicable. And the text in the blog post that the release of Lucee 5 "with functionalities now available through Lucee that were intended to be part of the commercial version of Railo, and which today belong to TRC" pretty explicitly states that TRC believes it owns the IP on that code, and therefore is entitled to make the release decision which would make the LGPL applicable.

 

Frankly it assumes TRC was in possession of the code (if it even existed) in the first place.

It doesn't assume possession, just ownership.

 

Can TRC show specifically where they paid $$ in agreement for Railo 5 to be delivered?

I don't know, I am not privy to any contract. Are you?

I hope the extended response the Lucee Association Switzerland is going to publish later this week will address the issue of any code that may have been written by its members (or its members employees) when they were still working or RT GmbH and that has for the first time been published in Lucee 5. The best way to lay this to rest would be if all code were written in the last 3 months.

Jochem

[AJ Michels]

I can't find anything online about this 4FTI company or Simon Slooten. I am assuming it is because I am trying to find a foreign company from my US location and Google isn't giving me results.

Does anyone know anymore about this company?

[ADK]

@Jochem - we'll said on all points.

I anxiously await the official LAS response, though I imagine it may take a little bit of time to properly vette one.

[Brad Wood]

@Jochem, it sounds to me like the onus is on 4F to prove any ownership.  If they were able to in a court, I don't think this blog-based speculation would have ever happened.  (And no, I know nothing about contract details)  It smells like an attempt to goad LAS into saying something that can be turned against them.

@AJ, you've probably heard of one of Simon's other companies, Prisma-IT.  Jochem, in fact, is the CTO there.

Thanks!

~Brad

ColdBox Platform Evangelist

Ortus Solutions, Corp 

E-mail: br...@coldbox.org

ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org 

Blog: http://www.codersrevolution.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lucee/JQD4--4TTcI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e5d07003-a34e-43ec-82c1-5435d6b8edeb%40googlegroups.com.

[Terry Whitney]

Best of Luck suing the user-base of an Open Source product.

First they would have to prove in court that they owned the copyrighted works in question, something that is seriously in doubt.

Next they would have prove that a "forum" or public debate is enough to move forward with a John Doe case in their prospective country.

Next they would, at least in the US again run another legal hurtle to even prove their suit has merit, which given the Bill of Rights, without an outright customer list a John Doe suit will fought by most ISPs as it would leave the ISP vulnerable to a lawsuit by their consumers.

Lastly you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a court of law that posting on a forum about a product that may or may not be infringed upon is a direct violation of copyright law.  Something most legal experts would laugh at.

Then of course there are those technical aspects, such as the various laws governing discovery, in which the plaintiff would be hard pressed to actually produce substantial evidence to support their case.

Lastly, the defendants could all demand that the plaintiff in question has sufficient capitol to cover the costs of any legal action against them in a counter suit, forcing the plaintiff to post several million dollars per suit is not an uncommon practice.  Something I highly doubt this group even has the means to do.

At the end of the day, it maybe a headache but any attempt to do this to an individual or company in the United States would result in a couple of million or more dollar successful counter suit by the defendants in each case.

Just my two-cents.

[Dejan Nenov]

For the sake of letting all of us form our own opinions: Can someone please post the text or a link to the License that was bundled in the last Railo build that was available as free / open source software?

The statement that one cannot freely form an open source project is a little .... smelly....

DN

[Brad Wood]

Railo is open source under the LGPL 2.1 license.  The license stipulates that it must be included in the source.  Here is the link to the license in the Railo GitHub repo.

https://github.com/getrailo/railo/blob/master/License.txt

LGPL is known as a "copy left" or "viral" license because any software that is based on it or uses it via "early binding" must also be LGPL (or compatible).  That means that all versions of Railo since it first became LGPL would be legally required to also be open source under be LGPL. 

You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute such modifications or work 

Also note, the LGPL forbids anyone to ever obtain a software patent that restricts use of the free software.  Basically, once a software is made LGPL, it can never be made otherwise (without very significant legal work involving every single contributor)

Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any free program.  We wish to make sure that a company cannot
effectively restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license from a patent holder.

Thanks!

~Brad

ColdBox Platform Evangelist

Ortus Solutions, Corp 

E-mail: br...@coldbox.org

ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org 

Blog: http://www.codersrevolution.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Lucee" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lucee/JQD4--4TTcI/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/a57e890e-a93a-4836-af17-da2dbe655936%40googlegroups.com.

[Dejan Nenov]

It appears that this legal action is immaterial to end users and is intended purely as a distraction and a punitive harassment to the ex-Railo staff.

As a gesture of my support to the spirit of the Open Source community I will accelerate all conversions to Lucee from legacy Railo.

Cheers,

DN

[Brad Wood]

For anyone interested, the Lucee Association has made a public response.

http://lucee.org/blog/railo-can-get-forked-under-lgpl-.html

Thanks!

~Brad

ColdBox Platform Evangelist

Ortus Solutions, Corp 

E-mail: br...@coldbox.org

ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org 

Blog: http://www.codersrevolution.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/bbc426b7-425c-4f51-bbb5-81c07ff8a03c%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Klinkenberg]

Hi AJ,

4FTI is a Dutch company, registered at the Dutch chamber of commerce at www.kvk.nl

I looked it up already, and 4FTI is 100% owned by Chirpa Holding B.V., which in turn has the following relationships:

Kind regards,

Paul Klinkenberg

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/e5d07003-a34e-43ec-82c1-5435d6b8edeb%40googlegroups.com.

[Jeroen Knoef]

http://lucee.org/blog/railo-can-get-forked-under-lgpl-.html

I can't help but read Railo can get f*cked. 

[Adam Cameron]

On Friday, 8 May 2015 11:07:23 UTC+1, Jeroen Knoef wrote:

http://lucee.org/blog/railo-can-get-forked-under-lgpl-.html

I can't help but read Railo can get f*cked. 

You don't, by any chance, think the choice of words was very very deliberate?

-- 

Adam 

[Andrew Myers]

Massive coincidence

[Nando Breiter]

What continues to irritate me about this situation is that Gert, Micha and Igal are among the most generous people you will find in the CFML community, and from what I see, the jerk behind 4FTI is simply trying in every way possible to shaft them. I don't get riled up about most of the stuff discussed here, the debates about language constructs, the direction of Lucee, new features, documentation, etc. But this really gets under my skin.

Aria Media Sagl
Via Rompada 40
6987 Caslano
Switzerland

+41 (0)91 600 9601
+41 (0)76 303 4477 cell
skype: ariamedia

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Myers <am2...@gmail.com> wrote:

Massive coincidence

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lucee" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lucee+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to lu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/8aa06315-6186-4526-be3f-9751fcd0c927%40googlegroups.com.

[Jonas Hauß]

+1 @Nando

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lucee/CAGHrs%3D8qOH5YN5i7HdQeQQ-rvT%3DFo90oT6fKxs-P16cAto9L6g%40mail.gmail.com.