Hi!

Indeed it should be Apache License v2.0 the one... please feel free to
change the headers of the files =)


On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Eduardo Silva <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Saludos,
_______________________________________________
Monkey mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey

Reply via email to