I confused it with the other browser. :) So indeed the license for the javascript code does not impact us.
Stef On Nov 14, 2010, at 3:13 PM, HaiColon wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Pharo-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-users
