4 ms·
It depends deeply on the project. Some something like, say, an HTTP API wrapper module, MIT/BSD style licenses are quite sufficient. There shouldn't be somethin
by kenneth_reitz 15y ago
It depends deeply on the project. Some something like, say, an HTTP API wrapper module, MIT/BSD style licenses are quite sufficient. There shouldn't be something patentable there. Apache, unfortunately, isn't compatible with GPL v2.
But if you're building something like node.js, nginx, or Lucene, choosing MIT/BSD is likely a terrible idea. Apache gives huge protections for unforeseen scenarios: automatic property rights assignment for contributions, poison-pill–like protections against patent suits, &c.
I highly recommend this book on Proprietary Information and Open Source: http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-Protecting/dp/0596517963 http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-Prot...
--
Aside — Sean, I took your CS101 class in '07. Crazy running into you randomly here ;)
- SeanLuke 15y agoHi Kenneth! The job would have be trivial enough to make it clear to everyone concerned that there was nothing patentable in it, I suppose. As to GPL compatibility, I've seen this play out with the AFL too (I use the AFL a lot). My take on it is: GPL incompatibility with well-designed, modern licenses like the AFL and Apache is not their fault. It's the fault of the FSF for producing licenses with outstanding flaws. As someone firmly in the BSD camp, I'm not too concerned about the FSF's foibles.
- kenneth_reitz 15y ago> GPL incompatibility with well-designed, modern licenses like the AFL and Apache is not their fault. It's the fault of the FSF for producing licenses with outstanding flaws. +100. I love this attitude.
- rbanffy 15y ago> It's the fault of the FSF for producing licenses with outstanding flaws. Please, tell that to Linux users. Now, compare the vibrant ecosystem around Linux with the vibrant ecosystem around FreeBSD and try to think why it happens and what's the difference between them.