Hi Stéphane, If it should really be a problem for people I can certainly change the license, at least for the client since the server uses Apache licensed code from Google already and then it would have two licenses which would make things unnecessarily complicated. The server is a rather small part though, I wrote the first version in about 5 minutes and the version that is in use now in about fifteen (not including the website, I spent way more time writing text than coding).
Pharo / Squeak aren't completely MIT though, they use the same Apache License as I do for SLBfb so I didn't think it would be a problem. Is it planned to completely replace the Apache code from Pharo with MIT code over time? Here's why I chose the Apache License (without giving any legal advice or guaranteeing that my understanding of the terms are correct, mind you!): It's more popular than the MIT license by a few orders of magnitude. I didn't want to believe this myself since I know way more MIT licensed software than Apache Software, but to be fair, who reads licenses unless he really has to. 25% of projects on Google Code Project hosting were Apache in 2008, only about 8% MIT according to Google. It's pretty much the same as the MIT license, safe for a few convenient additional clauses, like saying that if a contributor contributes code to the project it is assumed that his contribution is under the Apache License unless he explicitly states otherwise. This can greatly help to prevent misunderstandings. The really big difference is that it's actually written with modern copyright law in mind, which is one of the reasons it's so much longer than the MIT license. The MIT license might very well not be a valid license. For example, in Germany where I come from it is not allowed to disclaim liability, but the MIT license does that. Limiting the liability is allowed, the Apache license does that. Since this is also a website/server and not only a "local", "client side" application, the license being actually applicable to keep me from being sued becomes much more important. The chances are very slim that someone sues a tiny project like this but why make it easier for anyone, there are tons of law firms who's whole business model is suing people over unlawful license terms on websites (it's outrageous that doing this is actually legal). Here's an interesting article from Google on open source licenses: http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/05/standing-against-license-proliferation.html and an interview: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/google-says-no-to-license-proliferation/192 So to sum it up, I'm certainly open for discussion on this but I'd rather not change the license unless it's really necessary (e.g. No one wants to use it otherwise). It's not that I don't like the MIT license, it's my favorite license, it's so short and easy to understand, I am using it for Smalltalk Labs Browser (without the "for blogs" ^^) and used it many times before, but it really does look like choosing the Apache License for future projects is the right thing to do. What good is a license if it's not applicable anyhow? Cheers, Chris Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > > would you mind to put the license MIT so that it is the same with Squeak > and Pharo? > > Stef > -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ANN-Smalltalk-Labs-Browser-for-blogs-tp3041451p3041742.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users
