On 06/13/2013 11:29 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer <si...@schampijer.de> wrote:
On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com>:
I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
my
vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel Narvaez description,
I vote for Apache too.
--
.. manuq ..
Mozilla for gaia seems to be going for the Apache 2 license [1]. Here are
two posts with some background information about the licensing [2][3].
I could not find any information about what is the license that can/should
be used in the web apps developed for Firefox OS. The example apps have
different ones, some none, the documentation does not talk about it.
I guess that's left to the activity authors to decide.
In our case, if we make our libraries licensed under Apache 2
an activity author could use Apache 2 or GPL3 for his activity but not
GPL2, correct?
Here another interesting summary of the pros and cons of licensing
Android under ASL2 [1].
Simon
[1]
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2/
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
