Clearly I’m missing something here that Marc (and Alexandru) think is
obvious. I don’t understand how Apache 2.0 is “not a free license”. Is
there some site (URL) or somesuch you can point me to that will educate me?
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:11 PM Alexandru Barbur <root.ctrlc@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I concur with Marc Balmer. He beat me to what I was going to say.
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:07 schrieb Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:57 PM Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 21:43 schrieb Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>:…
We will not use it if you use apache 2.
create a barrier to *contribution*. Again, I cannot see any reason why it
Oh, also let me know if the adoption of Apache 2.0 license would
should, but if I’m mistaken I’d like to know asap.
Same. We would retire our Lua bindings.
May I inquire as to why this is a barrier? What is the actual nature of
the problem that the Apache 2.0 license creates for you?
Sure. MIT is a free license, whereas Apache 2 is not.
- Garrett
