OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] License Feedback

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

* Andrew S. Townley <andrew.townley@bearingpoint.com> [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.


Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
    - http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
    - http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS