On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Eduardo Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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]> >> >> > > thanks for the detailed explanation and opinions. Honestly i being > inclined by Apache License... > > anyone wants to add more comments ? > > nobody else ?, looks like Apache License v2.0 is the way to go. Feel free to share your comments before to change license in the repo. regards, -- Eduardo Silva http://edsiper.linuxchile.cl http://monkey-project.com
_______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list [email protected] http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
