Since there is a conflict between APL 2.0 and BSD how about a compromise. We could use the BSD license and attach a patent clause to it.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/18/2010 1:01 PM, Ted Bullock wrote: >> On 18/05/2010 11:58 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> On 5/18/2010 12:55 PM, Ted Bullock wrote: >>>> >>>> For instance here is the ISC license, it is small, easy to understand, >>>> and I never ever get confused about what my responsibilities are. >>>> """ >>>> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any >>>> purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above >>>> copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. >>> """ >>> >>> Where are you granted use of applicable patents? >> >> You aren't then again I'm pretty sure there was patent language in the >> codeplex agreement. > > Precisely my point; no reciprocal patent license from the CPF for the > resulting > body of work? Now that sets all sorts of alarms. > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers > Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
