License for Mrs

[Andrew McNabb]

We've long wondered about what license to use for Mrs. We originally
chose the GPL just because it's easy to switch from a more strict
license to a less strict one but hard to switch in the other direction.
We've been planning on making a change, and I would like to include
anyone in this discussion who would like to participate. Please feel
free to chime in with opinions, regardless of how involved you've been
with the project.

The choice seems to be primarily between the LGPL (Lesser General Public
License, version 3) and the ASL (Apache Software License, version 2).
The GPL (non-LGPL) isn't really a great license for Python code because
of the ambiguity about what linking means, and I've heard some good
arguments against using non-Apache permissive licenses. Here are a few
quotes that I found helpful:

Greg Stein: """That is one of the reasons that Google chooses the Apache
License (2.0) as the default for the software it open-sources. It is
permissive like BSD, but (unlike BSD) actually happens to mention the
rights under copyright law and gives you a license under those rights.
In other words, it actually knows what it is doing unlike some of the
other permissive licenses.""" [1]

"""derStandard.at: Why did you choose the Apache license as a default?

Chris DiBona: We really like it, it has a couple of things which make it
very modern. Obviously you are getting a copyright grant, you are free
to use and modify the software - like with all open source licenses. But
it also says for any patents that we have in relation to that software
we are giving you a license free of charge, and your users can too. The
only exception is, if you sue us - well you don't have that grant
anymore. If you don't - it's yours, you don't have to worry about us
sneaking up on you later.""" [2]

An argument against the ASL, which I don't find very convincing:

Adam Davis: """The BSD license is very, very, very simple, and was
largely created in a time when software copyright was not a big issue,
and so the legal language is not as finely crafted as it might otherwise
be.

But it's easily readable English, and should still stand up in court
just as well as any other license.

...

I use BSD because every coder I know immediately understands what BSD is
and means, whereas Apache is not as well known, and no one wants to read
4 pages of single spaced, 12pt type text (well, except lawyers - they
charge by the hour...;-)

But if you carefully read the redistribution section, you'll find that
the Apache license is slightly more restrictive - you are required to do
slightly more work than the BSD license when you modify the source, for
instance, and redistribute it. It's nominal - every programmer should be
doing these things, but I think it leaves room for legal battles that
ought not be part of a truly free license.
""" [1]

Also note that the ASL is incompatible with GPLv2:

"""[The ASL] is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of
the GNU GPL.

Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2,
because it has some requirements that are not in the that GPL version.
These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions.
The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we
recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax
permissive licenses.""" [3]

This doesn't bother me because any new GPL code should use GPLv3.

In summary, I think we should pick between the LGPLv3 and the ASL. I'm
leaning towards the ASL for this particular project. I would love to
hear any additional thoughts on the topic of licensing for Mrs. Thanks.


[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/40100/apache-licence-vs-bsd-vs-mit
[2] http://derstandard.at/1308186313932/Interview-Google-Android-is-the-Linux-desktop-dream-come-true
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html


--
Andrew McNabb
http://www.mcnabbs.org/andrew/
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55 8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868

[Kevin Seppi]

Here a a couple of follow-on thoughts:

1) There are people for whom the gpl terms are a turn off.  I would like to be a little more open... Relax, it was joke!

2) WRT gpl 2 incompatibility, Andrew may have meant this, but most (a lot?) of gpl code says something like "gpl v2 or any later version of the license." In this case a user can just declare they are using the code under gpl v3 and the incompatibility problem goes away, although there are also other terms that change.

3) I do sort of like the readable nature of the BSD, but not enough that I would push for it.

I think Apache is fine with me.

--Kevin

[Chris Monson]

+1 for Apache.

[Andrew McNabb]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 09:17:07PM +0200, Chris Monson wrote:
> +1 for Apache.

By the way, wasn't it Apache that introduced voting with "+1" and "-1"
on mailing lists? :)

[Jared Forsyth]

+1 for apache