Re: License Feedback
* Andrew S. Townley <andrew.townley@b...> [2005-08-16 07:09]: > > On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 03:21, Alan Gutierrez wrote: > > WHAT LICENSE??? > > > > I'm considering Apache 2.0, BSD, MIT. > > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php > "Note the new BSD license is thus equivalent to the MIT License, except > for the no-endorsement final clause." Well, then it looks like MIT or Apache 2.0. > So, unless you have a personal preference, they're essentially the > same. Following from Sun > (http://developers.sun.com/license/berkeley_license.html), you might > want to add the disclaimer to any of them about the nuclear facility: > "You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed > or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or > maintenance of any nuclear facility." I feel I must use a software license verbatum, and not mix or match clauses. It seems obvious that off-the-shelf software is inappropriate for use as-is in real-time or security intense environments. Is there a specific reason for nuclear? > There was an interesting post about this sort of question (thanks > Google!) on the OpenBSD archive from March > (http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0503/msg00053.html). > Personally, I can see both sides of the issue, but I went with the "less > words" approach for my own work. Wow! That's a good post. The sort of food for thought I seek. You know, my concern is that that when I release software, and when people adopt it, we've got a relationship of some sort. The argument the less said, the better, in the case of open source, is one that appeals to me. I'm looking for something striaght-forward, to reduce the opportunities for contention. > There was a quote about licensing from Mandrake (of Enlightenment fame) > that I can't find which essentially says, no matter what license you put > on it, people are going to use it one way or another. You might as well > make it as free as possible for people to do with it what they want. I > can't find the exact quote right now, but I think it's dead right. Is this in the range of GNU to BSD? I, agree. I'm definately not considering the GNU or LGPL. I don't know what it means for me to accept patches under that license. I want my software to remain open to me. > Licensing either promotes or hinders goodwill amongst > developers/contributers and keeps honest people honest. Beyond > that, for the individual developer, I don't see that it does much > else--of course, there's always hope ;). We'll, I'm hoping to get some adoption, and get people to give me feedback, so I can make my contribution XML. Thanks for the insight. Cheers. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan@e... - http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html - http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format