I know that MIT or BSD are by far the most-used licenses for Ruby libs, but Apache 2 has had the most success in greasing the open-source wheels at Microsoft, and it's a license both teams can agree on.
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 4:13 AM To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi <jimmy.scheme...@microsoft.com<mailto:jimmy.scheme...@microsoft.com>> wrote: As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby doesn't use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML). We'd like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good change for IronRuby? ~Jimmy _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
