Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Catacomb] licensing questions


I send this mail to both, the old and the new mailing list.

Am Mittwoch, 3. Januar 2007 18:39 schrieben Sie:
> We should probably also decide on what license to use for new files.
> I think our choices are MIT, modified BSD, or Apache 1.1 or 2.0.
> Here are the basic differences between the licenses:
>     * MIT is the simplest
>     * modified BSD explicitly states that the copyright owners' names
> cannot be used to endorse derived products
>     * In addition, Apache 1.1 requires attribution in documentation or
> code. * Apache 2.0 requires that you retain all copyright notices in the
> source, states that any contribution will come under the copyright
> ownership of Licensor, and licenses any patents involved royalty free.
> It would probably be hard for my company to agree to a Apache 2.0
> license for new files we've made if we were not the licensor.

As far as I know, most of the existing code is Apache 1.1 licensed. My company 
would be fine with using Apache 1.1 for the new file we made. 
Are there any reasons against Apache 1.1 license?