coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Nasser Dassi <nasserd@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to bring everyone's attention back to topic, here are the licenses in
question:

Alphabetical listing of OSI Licenses --
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

*"New" BSD* License -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
*Apache *License 2.0 -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
Apache License 2.0 -- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
*CodePlex *Foundation Contribution Agreement --
http://codeplex.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1TNVRjyVZJQ%3d&tabid=93

If we are talking about CoApp-created software, then Apache License 2.0
provides more explicit protections of liability/damage/etc.

If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt the
most transparent license.  Why?  Because we are not usurping licensing of
the source code; we are simply re-packaging the source code... so, broadly
speaking, we should protect all other licensing choices by stating that
COAPP-COMPILED SOFTWARE HONORS THE LICENSING SCHEME AS CHOSEN BY THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORS.

*for example..*. If the source is BSD, then our compilation is BSD.  If the
source is GPL, then our compilation is GPL.  If we are combining multiple
packages together, then we should establish a matrix that is inclusive of
participatory licensing.

*also...* Since the license scheme for source code is known and stored as
METADATA, then we can do real-time calculations based on pre-defined
compatible combinations.

(Yeah... i studied some law... but i'm not a lawyer...)

- nasser

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Fenn <andrewfenn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you
> actually
> > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this
> topic,
>
> I meant within our community not in open source in general. It seems
> some want BSD others want APL. I personally don't care which however I
> figured I should mention such an idea as an alternative so that
> everyone is happy.
>
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmrowe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On 5/18/2010 9:54 PM, Andrew Fenn wrote:
> >> Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a
> >> compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause to
> >> it.
> >
> > Hmmm?
> >
> > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict?  Can you
> actually
> > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this
> topic,
> > other than Theo?  I'm asking both because I'm not fond of technical nor
> legal
> > FUD, and because if there is a problem with the AL I'd like to point it
> out
> > to the relevant lawyers for when its revisited again.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> > Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>