4 ms·
You mean its a no go for a company to go away with the work of others without giving credit beside naming? Strange world we are living in ...
by jhoechtl 9y ago
You mean its a no go for a company to go away with the work of others without giving credit beside naming?
Strange world we are living in ...
- bluejekyll 9y agoGPLv3 is for a lot of companies too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, etc. Though many were never fond of the copy-left nature of GPLv2(and 1), they allowed it. GPLv3 upped the bar, to a degree that many lawyers won't sign off on its use. Apache 2.0 is the standard for almost every company I've dealt with, with MIT and BSD 3 clause being accepted as well. But Apache 2 seems to make most lawyers happy.
- maheart 9y agoYou say the GPLv3 is too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, but the Apache 2.0 is okay? The Apache 2.0 license requires a patent grant. How do they differ in the patent grant? I'd speculate that for many companies the GPLv3 is too strong in its copy-left stance, by disallowing Tivoization.
- belorn 9y agoGPLv3 patent text was created by literally copying the part from the Apache 2.0 text, and then adding a paragraph to handle patent agreements such as the one between Novel and Microsoft. The distinction between the two text is case of paten agreements.
- atonse 9y agoAs I replied below, the distinction between libraries and servers is a good one. I was too extreme in my statement without making that distinction. For libraries, yes, absolutely, companies should rightly be cautious, because it's relatively easy to expose yourself to legal risk. Nobody is "going away with the work of others" – the whole point of a license is so contributors decide how others can use their work. What exactly is the issue here?