thanks everyone. Starting from commit 84fa79e, Monkey is officially under the Apache License v2.0. Changes committed to Github,
regards, On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Jonathan Abdiel Gonzalez Valdebenito < jonathan.abd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Indeed it should be Apache License v2.0 the one... please feel free to > change the headers of the files =) > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Eduardo Silva <edsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Eduardo Silva <edsi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > 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 ? >>> >>> >> nobody else ?, looks like Apache License v2.0 is the way to go. >> >> Feel free to share your comments before to change license in the repo. >> >> regards, >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Saludos, > > -- 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
