[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Aug 16, 2005, at 17:32, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> Last I checked, the Saxon license was MPL 1.0 which, last I
> checked, was for some reason, incompatible with Apache License
> 1.1 and 2.0.
Whoa. That's news to me. IANAL, but both MPL 1.0 and Apache License 1.1
and 2.0 are supposed to allow differently licensed code in the same app
even though the MPL does not allow copying and pasting of code between
differently licensed source files.
> Thus, the Apache projects will not redistrbute Saxon.
Are you sure the reason is that the licenses are deemed incompatible
and not just a policy of keeping everything under their own license?
> I've narrowed it down to BSD, M.I.T. and Apache, since these are
> licenses that are compatible with the Apache license.
The old BSD advertisement clause is an image problem for BSD. That's
why given a choice between any version of the BSD license and the MIT
license, I'd choose the MIT license for my code. Also, the MIT license
is the most elegant license in its simplicity. (I use the MIT license
for the XML-related Java code that I have published.)
I guess the choice between MIT and Apache license 2.0 comes down to two
questions:
1) Do you want GPL-compatibility? (If yes, MIT.)
2) Do you need anything that the verbosity of the Apache License 2.0
provides?
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
|
