On 18/01/13 22:22, Rubén Martín wrote: > I think it would be easier to follow for non-licensing-experts if we > could get a brief summary (or table) about the differences between each > license. Sometimes it's complicated to perceive the differences you have > commented.
Are there particular areas in which it would help to have the differences highlighted? A complete answer to that question would be rather long :-) In terms of the amount of copyleft, free software licenses range from "no copyleft" (MIT, BSD, Apache) to "file-level copyleft" (MPL) to "library-level copyleft" (LGPL) to "application-level copyleft" (GPL). This discussion relates primarly to the "no copyleft" category. 1) Do we think there are circumstances under which it is best for Mozilla to release software under a "no copyleft" (a.k.a. "permissive") license? If so, what are they? 2) If there are such circumstances, what "no copyleft" license should we use? (With the licensing team recommending Apache.) 3) If we decide on Apache as our "no copyleft" license, what do we do, if anything, about existing projects which are BSDed or MITed? Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
