Re: Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

OK... I wasn't careful enough regarding what's wrong with our current
licence, although the end goal doesn't change (i.e., we need a
standard licence). Actually our "advertisement clause" is not like the
one in the old BSD license, and I don't think we have anything wrong
there. So what are people talking about... I guess they just saw "BSD"
and 4 clauses. (We say "BSD-like" everywhere, and I really don't know
why.) However, I believe it's not GPL compatible, unlike BSD-s, as it
has those strong prohibitions on the use of product and organization
names, for which ASL 1.1 was deemed GPL-incompatible. Last not least,
it has the quirk that it doesn't require distributing the copyright
files with the derivative product if that only includes the binary
form. (Because, um...) Both proposed licenses require that. I hope
that's not a problem...

So please cast your votes:

http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0
or
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

I vote for Apache 2 as it's more common in Java, and was developed by
an organization that's a key player in the Java world... so I hope
it's more engineered for that. (BTW, even gnu.org recommends it over
3-caluse BSD:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 3:40:11 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
[snip]

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk