On Tuesday, May 10, 2011, Tim Schaub <tsch...@opengeo.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Eric Lemoine > <eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 10, 2011, Tim Schaub <tsch...@opengeo.org> wrote: >>> Hey- >>> >>> We've had discussions previously about adopting a license that has >>> more widespread use than our modified BSD license. The motivation for >>> making a change is increase the likelihood that others can use >>> OpenLayers without having to direct specific licensing questions to a >>> very small pool of people (perhaps a pool of one). >>> >>> The 2-clause BSD, referred to as "Simplified BSD License" or "FreeBSD >>> License" looks good to me >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause). >>> >>> This license differs from our current license >>> (http://svn.openlayers.org/trunk/openlayers/license.txt) in a number >>> of ways: >>> >>> 1) The 2-clause license omits the non-endorsement clause. Our current >>> license says that nobody can use the OpenLayers name to endorse >>> products that use OpenLayers without specific written permission. To >>> my knowledge, we have given specific written permission once. There >>> are enough other uses of the OpenLayers name in promoting software >>> that uses OpenLayers that I think we are not going to enforce this >>> non-endorsement clause. >>> >>> 2) The 2-clause license doesn't contain any language about patent >>> rights. Our current language about patent rights is not included in >>> other common forms of the BSD (OpenLayers and FeatureServer are the >>> two uses I could quickly find). Removing this specific language would >>> align our license with licenses used by many other projects - reducing >>> the chance of licensing questions that are specific to our project. >>> >>> I'm open to hearing proposals to use another license. >>> >>> I'm +1 on changing to the 2-clause BSD. >> >> Tim, I'm just concerned about this regarding the 2-clause BSD: >> >> "The Free Software Foundation, which refers to the license as the >> FreeBSD License, states that it is compatible with the GNU GPL." >> >> (extracted from the wikipedia page) > > Please elaborate on this. It says the FSF thinks the 2-clause BSD is > compatible with the GPL. I don't see a negative there.
Sorry Tim. I was confused. +1 from me. -- Eric Lemoine Camptocamp France SAS Savoie Technolac, BP 352 73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96 Mail : eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com http://www.camptocamp.com _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list d...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
