coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Mark Stone <mark.stone@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jay R. Wren <jrwren@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'd encourage you to realize that this is a strawman point you are making.
>
> You don't have to be a master mechanic to choose a car.
>
> You don't have to be a lawyer to choose a license.
>

Fair enough, but I'd also encourage everyone to not confuse business
requirements with implementation when working out what product
features you're looking for. By looking at particular licenses and
saying "I want that one because it has these clauses" you are making a
classic design mistake.

The language in a license is an implementation choice. Stop looking at
implementation, and ask yourself what do you actually want from a
license:
* Do you want to restrict derivative works?
* Do you want to allow commercial bundling?
* Are you concerned about patents; if so, why?
* Are you concerned about liability; if so, why?
* Is there particular code you need to assure license compatibility with?

Set your requirements first, then consider what implementation best
meets those requirements. If the requirements are subtle enough, you
may well find you need a "master mechanic" (lawyer) to help you pick a
car (license).

Until that homework in requirements definition has been done, I --
again -- encourage use of New BSD as the least binding in the mean
time, and hence the least likely to get you into trouble.

-Mark