On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Jess Holle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Weiqi Gao wrote: [...] >> As to whether to mention license terms when a product is talked about on >> JavaPosse, my personal feeling is that it is not necessary. People can >> figure that out by themselves. If you have that extra 900 milliseconds, >> use it to talk about what the product does and how it does it. >> > Hmmm.... I'd have to disagree here. One of the critical bits for me as > to whether I follow up on a library/product lead is whether it is open > source and whether it otherwise restricts free commercial use in any > way, including whether it is GPL'ed. I don't care too much about > particulars beyond this -- BSD, Apache License 2.0, etc, even LGPL, are > all "free, unrestricted for commercial use" licenses. Stating the > actual license used is probably faster than any other way of spelling > this out, though.
That's the point of view you get when working on a closed source project, which is surprisingly similar to the one you have on BSD-licensed projects. If you do GPLed code then you want to know if something is Apache v2 licensed, since that's a no-go. I think stating the concrete license is very good value for time as long as it is one of the standard OSS ones. Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
