3 ms·
It looks like there are too many CC-XX licenses and they talk about incompatibility. This is the same issue I have with OSI and their "open source" licenses. F
by phkahler 5y ago
It looks like there are too many CC-XX licenses and they talk about incompatibility. This is the same issue I have with OSI and their "open source" licenses.
For software there are IMHO a very small set of relevant licenses: MIT/BSD (IMHO we don't need both), GPL/LGPL, and regular commercial licenses. It bothers me that there are other free software licenses like Apache and MPL (probably bothers me because I don't yet understand the differences) but it is still a relatively small set. I suppose AGPL is also a reasonable desire for some people given the rise of SaaS, but even throwing that in the mix results in incompatibility with a lot of code.
- ghaff 5y agoBasically Apache is a more "modern" license in the MIT/BSD vein that has language related to patents and perhaps other things that make lawyers more comfortable. I believe the Cloud Native Computing Foundation now requires Apache for new projects under the foundation. (The Apache Software Foundation also has a lot of projects associated with it as well of course.) And MIT's probably more common for individuals and small projects that just want a basic license without a lot of legal language they don't really understand.