On Jul 20, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:40 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 6, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Mark Wielaard wrote:
That seems to be similar to how we (FSF/GNU) look at the CPL. It
is a
free software license. But since it is incompatible with the GPL
(has
different requirements on distribution) we are happy to use it for
standalone use in applications, but we won't use such code bases
for
creating larger derivative works.
Yeah. Ideally bits and pieces, as they are contributed to Harmony
would
be licensed under the Apache license or even more liberal licenses,
Allright. I'll bite. What's more liberal? I consider that the AL
is the most liberal of the commonly found languages as it gives the
users full freedom to do as they choose not only with the licensed
software, but with any derivative works or additional innovation they
may combine with it...
Some examples are the MIT/X, "Modern" BSD, the IKVM and ORP license.
I'll buy that, except I'll note that the IKVM license isn't
recognized as an OSS license by OSI (although there probably is a
close one...) and the ORP license - the Intel Open Source License,
has been withdrawn as a recommendation to try and limit FLOSS license
proliferation.
The ASL is definitely less "liberal" then any of the above since it
has
extra requirements. Not that those extra requirements are such a bad
thing. They seem designed to protect the free software community from
loosing credit or distribution rights in the future. Just like the GPL
adds some requirements to make sure all derived works will benefit the
users and the community. But for example the patent-retaliation clause
in ASLv2 is an extra restriction that isn't in any of the above and
that
makes it GPLv2 incompatible.
Once you get it in GPLv3, all will be fine :)
(And then GPLv2 code will be incompatible with GPLv3 code?)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
