On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:29:28PM -0500, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > On 3/2/12 1:38 PM, "Chad Perrin" <per...@apotheon.com> wrote: > > >There seem to be three general approaches to failing to address the > >important matter of how to deal with the needs of independent open source > >software developers: > > > >1. "It's easy! All you need is the ability to fall back on a lawyer's > >help." > > > >2. "It's easy! Just avoid everything." > > Ah, what was your third general approach? > > How about: > > 3. "It's easy! Just use Apache 2.0 licensed stuff!" > > Permissive. Explicit patent grant. Done. :)
Be careful about those requirements for things like per-file modification notices and proliferation of NOTICE file attributions. Of course, these are relatively minor matters compared to many other licenses, and I agree with your statement in principle; I just think the Apache License 2.0 is far from ideal. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss