On 13/02/13 21:55, tofumatt wrote: > These folks are developers, not lawyers. I'm very much the same way > when it comes to licensing; I don't want to bother with it at all and > just do it for my personal projects out of necessity. Check out this > post -- a developer just wants to give something away and people go > on and on about the legal stuff.
I sympathise with those who would rather code than care about licensing. Unfortunately, the world does not work the way many of us would like it to work, and restrictive you-cant-do-anything copyright is the default. (See http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/ for an interesting comment on this.) > The reason Apache is unacceptable is because it's not what they use > or want to deal with. The same way most Ruby libraries are MIT, most > Python is BSD, and that makes it pretty headache-free for developers > who just want to write code. See Will's data. Things are more heterogeneous than you think. I hope also that other BSD/MIT-tending communities will read the state of the world the same way we do, and move towards Apache 2.0 as the best non-copyleft license available. > Especially when a lot of the stuff we ship are libraries and > application templates (think Mortar), non-copyleft licensing saves > people headaches. That's a sign of truly great software: it solves > problems without creating more. We should do the same with licensing > for the communities we occupy. Apache is a non-copyleft license; what you say above is part of the reason we want to change the policy to allow it. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/legal
