Edsiper, On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 20:20 -0600, Eduardo Silva wrote: [snip] > Its a valid point, just to get more details, which concerns may > solve ?, indeed the question is: a company who is adopting Monkey > technology, why do they would prefer APL over BSD ? Let me explain myself a bit better about the requirements the new license has to meet based on your first email.
* Monkey uses a copyleft license (also known as a strong free software
license), this makes potential companies to look for another option to
build its new disruptive product.
* Monkey (and Duda) to increase the users base needs a friendlier
license to build commercial products. And according to your words, it's
perfectly fine for you that allow those product to be closed source.
* Monkey being a good fit for embedded platforms is more useful if it
can be part of a flash image instead of a deb/rpm package.
* Duda closed source plugins developed in-house by companies need to be
able to rely in a bright line that separates "their proprietary code" of
"duda's open source code", having a viral license (like *GPL) makes
legal departments to scare and forbid any usage just to be on the safe
side.
So, the question is "what license can we use to tackle those problems
and reduce legal barriers?"
Your answer to this is "BSD 3-clause", mine is "Apache License v2".
IMHO, Apache license covers scenarios were BSD doesn't say a word. The
most recurring topic is _patents_[0]
Here a question from the Apache License FAQ:
I'm not a lawyer. What does it all MEAN?
Describing legal documents in non-legalese is fraught with
potential for misinterpretation. Notwithstanding the text that
follows, the actual text of the license itself is legally
binding and authoritative.
That said, here's what the Apache license says in layman's
terms:
It allows you to:
freely download and use Apache software, in whole or in
part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes;
use Apache software in packages or distributions that you
create.
It forbids you to:
redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without
proper attribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any
way that might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your
distribution;
use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any
way that might state or imply that you created the Apache
software in question.
It requires you to:
include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may
make that includes Apache software;
provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation
for any distributions that include Apache software.
It does not require you to:
include the source of the Apache software itself, or of any
modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you
may assemble that includes it;
submit changes that you make to the software back to the
Apache Software Foundation (though such feedback is encouraged).
source: http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
So, companies still can fork monkey and bundle it or whatever they want.
I hope explained myself better this time.
Best REgards,
[0] http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#PatentScope
--
Felipe Reyes <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list [email protected] http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
