"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkov...@eclipse.org> writes: >So this is basically re-opening up the whole can of worms that the license >proliferation committee struggled with some years back that led them to >create the category "License that are popular and widely used or with strong >communities". Notably missing from your list are the "weak copyleft" >licenses that are backed by large communities such as Mozilla and Eclipse.
The question is, do (or should) projects unassociated with those organizations still use those licenses? For Apache 2.0, the answer is clearly "yes". If it's also "yes" for Moz and/or Eclipse, then we should probably make a judgement call and put one or both in that first group. Like I said, this is a first pass. The whole point of the post is to get comments like yours. I think this is not quite the same problem as the license proliferation committee tackled previously. I'm not thinking of this as a license proliferation problem per se, anyway, but rather a "What would be most helpful for a newcomer to the site?" problem. >I am certainly not happy with the idea that the only license of that >category which would be implicitly recommended by the OSI is the LGPL. The >LGPL is not a desirable license for many (primarily commercial) adopters of >open source, and in fact neither the Eclipse or Apache communities will >allow it for dependencies. *nod* Apache won't allow LGPL for deps? I hadn't heard that; I'm pretty sure I've seen LGPL'd deps in not just Apache-licensed projects, but in projects that are actually formally part of the ASF. Not enough time to do the primary source research on that right now, as I'm about to head into a meeting, but I wanted to at least note that it sounded odd to me... Thanks, -K _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
