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.
IMNSHO, you *really* don't want to do that. You'd be leaping into the world of 'licence proliferation,' which is a maze of twisty little passages containing monsters. At the very worst, pick one from http://opensource.org/licenses/ Those have all been vetted and verified as open source licences. As for the prolixity of the Apache 2.0 licence.. I was part of its framing, and we took great pains to make it legible and understandable to NON-lawyers. I.e., lots of English explaining what legalese is present. The legal assistance included some sharp attorneys from IBM, who really know their stuff. So it's pretty solid. Just FYI. [For those who don't know me, I'm a founding Apache member, been a director of the OSI, and am currently doing some contract work for CPF.] -- Ken Coar OSS developer, opinionist, author, and sanagendamgagwedweinini _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
