I am +100 on this. :) Do the CLAs permit us to simply relicense by consensus of the steering committee?
SDE (sent from my mobile) -----Original Message----- From: <christopher.schm...@nokia.com> Sender: openlayers-dev-boun...@lists.osgeo.org Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:25:47 To: <eric.lemo...@camptocamp.com> Cc: <d...@openlayers.org> Subject: Re: [OpenLayers-Dev] MOTION: simplified license On May 10, 2011, at 12:16 PM, ext Eric Lemoine wrote: > 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. +1. -- Chris > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list d...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list d...@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
