tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post7982045109038664021..comments2024-03-13T10:20:27.668+00:00Comments on Neil Mitchell's Blog (Haskell etc): Licensing my Haskell packagesNeil Mitchellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13084722756124486154noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-36947384440381649222018-09-07T14:50:00.516+01:002018-09-07T14:50:00.516+01:00Awesome! I've now switched my first package ov...Awesome! I've now switched my first package over: https://github.com/ndmitchell/record-dot-preprocessor/blob/master/LICENSE. Like you Ed, I'm not planning to do it retrospectively for many packages (only those with nearly no contributions).Neil Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13084722756124486154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-72575477000239989542018-09-03T01:27:29.439+01:002018-09-03T01:27:29.439+01:00I started writing all my new code as `BSD-2-Clause...I started writing all my new code as `BSD-2-Clause OR Apache-2.0` a week or two back as well. (I think as a result of the same twitter licensing discussion.)<br /><br />I'd already weakened from `BSD-3-Clause` to `BSD-2-Clause` as the extra clause added no real substantive protection anyways.<br /><br />Due to relicensing headaches, I've yet to go back and do this to anything that already has contributors other than me though.Edward Kmetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16144424873202502715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-50849194676186028932018-08-31T11:52:13.879+01:002018-08-31T11:52:13.879+01:00In my opinion Apache 2.0 is the sanest choice.
It...In my opinion Apache 2.0 is the sanest choice.<br /><br />It's made by lawyers that understood the complexity of the current landscape, in which software patents are booby traps. It's also very permissive, so it's not a copyleft license.<br /><br />BSD / MIT are essentially traps, especially when it comes to projects released by big companies, like Facebook or Microsoft.<br /><br />Such companies started practicing BSD + PATENTS.txt, however the PATENTS.txt is designed to serve and protect the parent company, not other contributors or the users and the existence of that PATENTS.txt is actually worse than not having one at all, because without one in the US there's the concept of the "implicit patents license" that can apply, although I don't think this is battle tested. And the concept isn't necessarily valid elsewhere, like in the EU.<br /><br />Apache 2.0 is a permissive license done right. Note that it is not compatible with GPL v2.0, but that's because GPL v2.0 is broken due to (1) disallowing other restrictions + (2) not having an explicit patents grant. They fixed that in GPL v3.<br /><br />Dual licensing is a pain to be honest, but it's better than making the wrong choice.Alexandru Nedelcuhttps://alexn.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-25663515689491893532018-08-31T02:26:41.757+01:002018-08-31T02:26:41.757+01:00It's also LGPL compatibility, but LGPL-2.0 cov...It's also LGPL compatibility, but LGPL-2.0 covers that. The advantage of BSD is that it's a subset of LGPL and probably any other license that might have a problem in future, like a universal donor for blood types. Neil Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13084722756124486154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-16194201606469505202018-08-31T02:14:58.421+01:002018-08-31T02:14:58.421+01:00Since GPLv2 compatibility is driving the dual lice...Since GPLv2 compatibility is driving the dual licensing, would 'Apache-2.0 OR GPL-2-Or-Later' also serve? I'm not sure it's better than Apache/BSD3, but I'm not sure it's worse, either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-42926658679275600732018-08-30T23:55:34.959+01:002018-08-30T23:55:34.959+01:00Thanks Francesco, I reworded to protective, since ...Thanks Francesco, I reworded to protective, since at that time I was more going for additional protection, and copyleft was just the form that happened to take.Neil Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13084722756124486154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7094652.post-12791434885904067912018-08-30T23:48:27.641+01:002018-08-30T23:48:27.641+01:00Happy to hear cabal supports SPDX expressions!
Mi...Happy to hear cabal supports SPDX expressions!<br /><br />Minor remark: both the FSF and OSI use "copyleft license" instead of "restrictive open-source license" (which is clearer: Apache could be considered "restrictive" too compared to MIT). If you didn't mean copyleft, but any rights in general, Mark Webbings suggest the wording "protective open-source license".<br /><br />Interesting post and solid reasoning: Apache not being compatible with GPLv2 is a fact and unfortunately not all projects can update to GPLv3; offering dual licencing is the pragmatic way to go.Francescohttp://www.ariis.itnoreply@blogger.com