[openbeos] Re: OBOS license

  • From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:12:35 -0400

>Ok, I know this has been talked about before, but I have some
>questions.

OK!

>1- If this project is supposed to use the BSD license, why does the
>sourceforge page say the MIT license?

I am not sure where the BSD thing came from. MIT was the license I originally 
chose.

>2- Doesn't the license need to be included in the code that is being
>written?

Eh. It probably should. OTOH, since the license (as you say below) is 
exceptionally liberal, I don't think that it makes any difference. It isn't 
like we actually could become upset with someone for misusing our code.

>3- If it is not there, does it matter, since the BSD license says, for
>the most part, do what ever you want with our code?

Right.

>4- Are there any other licenses that are acceptable to be used within
>the OBOS project, like the Apache license, which, looks very similar to
>the BSD license, from what I've seen?

There are a couple of ways I could take this question...
If you mean "Can we use code that is under the Apache license?", then sure.
If you mean "I don't like MIT, can I contribute code under, say, GPL?" than the 
answer is no.

>The reason I asked, is that the majority of the code that I see in the
>OBOS CVS repository, does not contain a license.  Also, there are some
>nice open source lbraries out in the world, that might be nice to
>include in OBOS for future relases, and I want to know which would be
>allowed.

Sure. So long as the licensing isn't too restrictive, that would be fine. Yes, 
I consider GPL to be too restrictive. Before anyone jumps on me, let me clarify 
it this way - I know that we can ship GPL'ed packages (say, gawk). But we will 
not have any binaries that must link with any GPL'ed code.


Other related posts: