On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 21:00:03 +0000
"Clark, Gilbert" <gc355804@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Normally lurk, but since the license name-calling has started
already ...
The argument that Apache 2.0 is not a free license seems odd to me as
well. There are many other arguments (e.g. need contributor sign-off,
want compatibility with GPLv2, stuff like that) that seem like they
would make some degree of sense to my non-lawyer brain,
but the
argument that Apache 2.0 is not a free license strikes me as an
ambiguous (and possibly visceral) one.
I'll further note that, as far as I remember, LLVM was looking at
moving from something BSD-like over to Apache 2 for quite some time -
I believe there was some pretty lively conversation happening there
about pros / cons which may be a useful reference for this
conversation (in the event no one has seen it already) [1].