> > > technology, why do they would prefer APL over BSD ? > Let me explain myself a bit better about the requirements the new > license has to meet based on your first email. > > * Monkey uses a copyleft license (also known as a strong free software > license), this makes potential companies to look for another option to > build its new disruptive product. > * Monkey (and Duda) to increase the users base needs a friendlier > license to build commercial products. And according to your words, it's > perfectly fine for you that allow those product to be closed source. > * Monkey being a good fit for embedded platforms is more useful if it > can be part of a flash image instead of a deb/rpm package. > * Duda closed source plugins developed in-house by companies need to be > able to rely in a bright line that separates "their proprietary code" of > "duda's open source code", having a viral license (like *GPL) makes > legal departments to scare and forbid any usage just to be on the safe > side. > > So, the question is "what license can we use to tackle those problems > and reduce legal barriers?" > > Your answer to this is "BSD 3-clause", mine is "Apache License v2". > > IMHO, Apache license covers scenarios were BSD doesn't say a word. The > most recurring topic is _patents_[0] > > Here a question from the Apache License FAQ: > > I'm not a lawyer. What does it all MEAN? > > Describing legal documents in non-legalese is fraught with > potential for misinterpretation. Notwithstanding the text that > follows, the actual text of the license itself is legally > binding and authoritative. > > That said, here's what the Apache license says in layman's > terms: > > It allows you to: > > freely download and use Apache software, in whole or in > part, for personal, company internal, or commercial purposes; > > use Apache software in packages or distributions that you > create. > > It forbids you to: > > redistribute any piece of Apache-originated software without > proper attribution; > > use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any > way that might state or imply that the Foundation endorses your > distribution; > > use any marks owned by The Apache Software Foundation in any > way that might state or imply that you created the Apache > software in question. > > It requires you to: > > include a copy of the license in any redistribution you may > make that includes Apache software; > > provide clear attribution to The Apache Software Foundation > for any distributions that include Apache software. > > It does not require you to: > > include the source of the Apache software itself, or of any > modifications you may have made to it, in any redistribution you > may assemble that includes it; > > submit changes that you make to the software back to the > Apache Software Foundation (though such feedback is encouraged). > > source: http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#WhatDoesItMEAN > > So, companies still can fork monkey and bundle it or whatever they want. > > I hope explained myself better this time. > > Best REgards, > > [0] http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#PatentScope > -- > Felipe Reyes <fre...@tty.cl> > >
thanks for the detailed explanation and opinions. Honestly i being inclined by Apache License... anyone wants to add more comments ? -- Eduardo Silva http://edsiper.linuxchile.cl http://monkey-project.com
_______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list Monkey@lists.monkey-project.com http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
