[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] 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
|