One advantage of MIT over Apache2: with MIT, when distributing a derived
work, you can relicense the source material under your own license terms,
so long as you keep the copyright notice intact.
Apache2 forces you to keep the Apache2 for that original source material,
which can makes it more difficult/trickier to distribute a derived work
under a single license.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Michael Powell <mwpowellhtx@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Marc:and
I have a feeling there is either confusion or FUD here. Apache 2.0 is a
liberal open source license, permitting almost unrestricted commercial
open source use, modification, and redistribution. It includes languagecovered by
providing patent grants and protection against patent trolls (especially
submarine patent trolling, where a contributor gives code that is
a patent it owns without disclosure, then sues consumers for patentcontribution
infringement. Under Apache 2.0 this isn’t possible, since the
also includes a patent license.
You just can't advertise "Apache Inside", is all. If that's a selling
point for marketing, you are out of luck.
Apache 2.0 is *not* a copy-left license, and should not be confused withthe
Mozilla (MPL 2.0) — which *is* a copy-left (though non “viral”) license.nature
I’m wondering if you maybe are confusing the MPL 2.0 and Apache 2.0
licenses?
If that is *not* the case, then I would like to understand what specific
terms of the Apache 2.0 license you find objectionable?
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:19 PM Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
:
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Cody Piersall <cody.piersall@xxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:07 schrieb Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
May I inquire as to why this is a barrier? What is the actual
of the
problem that the Apache 2.0 license creates for you?
Sure. MIT is a free license, whereas Apache 2 is not.
Could you be more specific? According to Wikipedia it's still
compatible with GPLv3, and my understanding up to right now has been
that it is a generally respectable open source license.
Compatible witl GPLv3, maybe. But we are talking about the MIT license
here.
And no, GPLv3 is not a respectable open source license, it is a computer
virus.
