Just to bring everyone's attention back to topic, here are the licenses in question:
Alphabetical listing of OSI Licenses -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical *"New" BSD* License -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php *Apache *License 2.0 -- http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php Apache License 2.0 -- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html *CodePlex *Foundation Contribution Agreement -- http://codeplex.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1TNVRjyVZJQ%3d&tabid=93 If we are talking about CoApp-created software, then Apache License 2.0 provides more explicit protections of liability/damage/etc. If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt the most transparent license. Why? Because we are not usurping licensing of the source code; we are simply re-packaging the source code... so, broadly speaking, we should protect all other licensing choices by stating that COAPP-COMPILED SOFTWARE HONORS THE LICENSING SCHEME AS CHOSEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS. *for example..*. If the source is BSD, then our compilation is BSD. If the source is GPL, then our compilation is GPL. If we are combining multiple packages together, then we should establish a matrix that is inclusive of participatory licensing. *also...* Since the license scheme for source code is known and stored as METADATA, then we can do real-time calculations based on pre-defined compatible combinations. (Yeah... i studied some law... but i'm not a lawyer...) - nasser On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Fenn <andrewf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you > actually > > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this > topic, > > I meant within our community not in open source in general. It seems > some want BSD others want APL. I personally don't care which however I > figured I should mention such an idea as an alternative so that > everyone is happy. > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:03 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 5/18/2010 9:54 PM, Andrew Fenn wrote: > >> 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. > > > > Hmmm? > > > > I'm still asking with legitimate interest, what conflict? Can you > actually > > cite either a lawyer or prominent OSS individual's research on this > topic, > > other than Theo? I'm asking both because I'm not fond of technical nor > legal > > FUD, and because if there is a problem with the AL I'd like to point it > out > > to the relevant lawyers for when its revisited again. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
