coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Seo Sanghyeon <sanxiyn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2010/5/19 Mark Stone <mark.stone@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > 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?
>
> I'd think "short", "simple" or "easy to read" would also be an important
> requirement, since this does affect developer recruiment.
>
> If you object to "simple", let's call it "perceived to be simple". For this
> requirement, superiority of BSD to AL2 is quite clear.
>
> --
> Seo Sanghyeon
>
>
Yes, but WHICH and WHAT BSD license? There are a few BSD style licenses, and
we don't really know which one we're talking about aside from the fact that
it doesn't have the advert clause.

The BSD-style license simplicity leads to ambiguity. While the simplicity is
nice for some devs, I would prefer to see a more explicit license, e.g.
Apache License 2.0.

Since the GNU licenses are obviously out of the question (I doubt this group
would be conducive to working under a GNU license anyway, even if it was
LGPL), I'd prefer Apache License 2.0. It is wordy, I'll admit. But, we have
to remember that legalese IS NOT English. Simple is not the best for
Legalese. And the Apache license explicitly protects us on patents. While
most of us would agree that Software Patents are stupid, the legal
industry's software branch thrives on it. The Apache License leaves nothing
to chance, and I would be far more comfortable with a license like that.