RL 'Bob' Morgan
rlmorgan at washington.edu
Tue May 10 12:19:32 PDT 2005
I'm happy to see this. In the part of the university space that I have
some influence on (basically Internet2 middleware projects such as
Shibboleth, things we produce at the University of Washington, other folks
who endure my hand-waving) I've been promoting the use of, uh, "the"
Apache license, ie <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html>, in
an attempt to reduce license proliferation. So I'm always pleased to see
other projects doing this too.
FWIW we're working on one project with a potential code contributor that
has a rather notorious history on patent issues, and the patent provisions
in the Apache license are very useful in making clear to them our
expectations, and is helping us to convince them to do the right thing
(ie, grant the blanket license).
- RL "Bob"
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Mitchell Kapor wrote:
> After due deliberation, we have decided to go with an Apache license for
> Cosmo (OSAF's WebDAV/CalDAV server).
> The Apache license, having many fewer restrictions, is, broadly speaking,
> developer friendly. Specifically, the Apache license is better suited if we
> want commercial developers to use or incorporate Cosmo, as opposed to develop
> their own. This has proven a key dynamic with Apache itself.
> We recognize that going with the Apache license arguably forecloses the
> revenue opportunity from a hybrid license approach as we have planned for the
> chandler client. However, it does not eliminate the possibility of
> generating revenue from a hosted service offering.
> On balance, going with the Apache license makes sense because we to promote
> the goal of widespread adoption and are less sensitive to the revenue issue.
> Sheila Mooney and Pieter Hartsook will be working out the details so
> developers can legally download the code.
> Thanks for your patience.
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
More information about the Dev