On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:18 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 nature 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.
