Hi Tomek, On 10/17/23, Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote: >> To be honest I don't see a big issue of a driver as dual license, we >> already have SocketCAN and other drivers as dual license (GPL and >> Apache, BSD and Apache, etc). The original Author said the want is to >> be released as dual license: A or license B. > > Isn't is more A AND B ? > > A OR B == I want A but not B so I stick to A ? :-P >
No, because technically you can enforce two at same time, in that case GPL could prevail! :-) >> The License war is terrible, I think there is not a single license >> compatible with all, even CC0, BSD or public domain cannot be used as >> freely was we think. Many countries law, companies, patents, etc, >> involved. > > BSD and MIT seems most liberal. Apache also clarifies patent stuff. > GPL is viral and enforces GPL on all further works. > > As above, if the case is "A AND B" then GPL taints everything to be GPL > too..? > See, the Author defines it as dual license (so yes A "AND" B), but if project X uses license A it will stick to license A instead of B. If project Y uses license B it will stick with B instead of A. So, more precisely it is A XOR B. > Quck search (query: gpl vs apache vs bsd license) resulting quote : > > " > I will mainly talk about the practical consequences and not go into > the nitty gritty. By GPL compatible I mean that a GPL project can use > your code (NOT you can use GPL code). > > The MIT and BSD 2 clause licenses have similar requirements: keep the > license file. The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that > prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. These three licenses > are compatible with GPLv2 and v3. > > The Apache 2.0 license requires you to keep the license file, the > NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It > also addresses some patent-related issues, so companies use it a lot. > It is compatible with GPLv3 but not v2 (due to the patent clauses). > > There is also an old BSD license that has an clause related to > advertising. Don't use it because it's not GPL compatible. > > In practice, the ecosystem you are working with has a license that is > used most often to begin with, and I would stick to that. For example, > I would use MIT for Nodejs packages. If you are working on an > application, some would recommend using the Apache 2.0 license because > it covers patent issues. > " > > And some references: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License > > :-) > Yes, BTW the original author said the driver will be offered as dual license (GPL "AND" / "OR" / "XOR" / "however" Apache) so I think it fear to use under Apache License I don't know how we could fix this Catch 22, maybe the Author could release two separated versions? BR, Alan
