Ok then, +1 on the Apache license.
On May 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Ted Leung wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
If we use the apache 2.0 license, which is incompatible with the
GPL, wouldn't we then be restricting parcel developers from using
the GPL if they did wish to do so?
No, parcel developers can license under any terms they like.
Additionally, the FSF and ASF are working on removing the
incompatibility problems (which mostly are in RMS's head)
Many developers like the "viral" aspect of the GPL because it
requires those who are modifying the code to contribute it back to
that community and I wouldn't want to alienate those developers.
On the other hand, there are also many developers who dislike the
viral aspects of the GPL.
IMHO we should pick the license that restricts the parcel writers
choice of software licenses the least. I'm not a licensing expert
so I don't know what the best solution is but I think that the
LGPL or the Python licenses could work.
The least restrictive license is a license from the BSD family of
licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache). The Apache license is the one that
best accounts for the state of the world that we live in today.
----
Ted Leung Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
