+1
2014-09-06 19:42 GMT+02:00 Jörg Hohwiller <jo...@j-hohwiller.de>: > Hi there, > > In order to change the license of the source-code of an open-source > project the official procedure is that all authors that contributed > (reasonable) to the code give their agreement (potentially by signature). > This is especially for larger projects a big procedure. > > I personally see no point why a change from ASL2.0 to MIT would really > make a big difference here. > In my company ASL2.0 is the most preferred OSS licenese right after > MIT/BSD-style licenses. We had professional lawyers consulting us for > choosing liceneses for own code as well as how do deal with usage of OSS > code in open or closed source projects. > > Best regards > Jörg > > Am 04.09.2014 23:52, schrieb Dan Tran: > > Here is quote from our internal doc regarding apachev2 > > These licenses contain automatic patent licenses. Some specific > technologies have been reviewed and found to be free of undesired > impact on XXXXX's patent portfolio. XXXXX development organizations > are approved only to use the specific technologies listed here > covered by these licenses. > > Here is the one for MIT/BSD > > while generally benign, may include copyright, license > publication, or advertising requirements. These must be reflected in the > Compliance Plan. > > > here is another interesting reference > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40100/apache-license-vs-bsd-vs-mit > > > Very interesting > > > The question is there a rule where I as main developer/maintainer not > allow to change the license?? > > -D > > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert Scholte < > codeh...@sourcegrounds.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> read http://www.codehaus.org/customs/licenses.html >> >> The advice is to use ASL2, although MIT is permitted. >> I want to hear the facts why "they say" MIT would be better. >> >> Robert >> >> Op Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:40:48 +0200 schreef Dan Tran <dant...@gmail.com>: >> >> OK, They are not my plugins, they belong to MOJO@codehaus >>> >>> those like vfs-maven-plugin, wagon-maven-plugin >>> >>> From what I heard MIT is most friendly license, better than ASL, do what >>> you want, no need to keep copyright? >>> >>> >>> -D >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise <khmarba...@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/3/14 8:08 PM, Dan Tran wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> What is the process/procedure for doing so? >>>>> >>>>> Motivation: my company prefer MIT over ASL2, ie less hassle for me to >>>>> deal with. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Just one Question: >>>> >>>> What do you mean by 'my plugins' ? Of which plugins are we talking about >>>> are those plugins are belonging you in person ... >>>> >>>> Furthermore ASL2 is the best a company can use... >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> Karl-Heinz Marbaise >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >>>> >>>> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >>>> >>>> >>>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> > > -- -- David J. M. Karlsen - http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidkarlsen
