Re: Forking Inputstream: Am I missing something
Lew wrote:
Of what restrictions do you speak? The point of open-source licenses =
is that
they *remove* restrictions from future users.
The BSD license and the Apache license aren't very far apart in their
consequences.
I really am interested in what negative consequences you anticipate from=
the
Apache license. What are they?
dennis wrote:
First let me clarify something. With users in this case I mean people or =
customers using the sources
and not only the compiled code. For the later no real restrictions do app=
ly. For the people using and
deriving of the sources restrictions do apply.
The most notable is from the GPL: All derived works should also be open s=
ource.http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php
I asked about the Apache license.
The Apache license has just one restriction that has some of my customers=
worried:
Your customers are Nervous Nellies.
Um, IMHO.
If you have a NOTICE in your software and made a derivitive work from any=
Apache code you have
to mention Apache in that notice.http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2=
..0.html
A comparable advertising restriction was in the original license from BSD=
as well,
but was deleted in 1999. Hence the name
They're not comparable at all. The BSD license referred to
advertising, as you mention; the Apache license does not. There is no
requirement in the Apache license to mention Apache in your
advertising. All you have to do is put copyright attributions (*not*
advertisements) in the NOTICE file and source code of your
application. They don't have to appear in the application interface,
splash screen or anywhere else but in the copyright notices. The BSD
license is similar in this respect - "Redistributions of source code
must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
the following disclaimer." Tomayto, tomahto.
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/>
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php>
I use some open source software in products I create for my customers. Af=
ter I leave
they should be able to extend or alter the work I have done or the open s=
ource software it relies on,
without being required to release it as open source or advertise other or=
ganisations, not even my own.
Again, the Apache license does not say anything whatsoever about
advertising; it does not impose any restrictions or requirements that
the copyright holder be mentioned in advertising.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Apache, they have some great s=
tuff out there and I use it regularly.
If I need to fix something in their code I will supply it back to them fo=
r possible commitment in future releases.
For my customers it is a different matter. They cannot derive works of it=
, without complying to the notice
part of the license, or supplying it back to Apache. Something they might=
not be willing to do.
There is absolutely no requirement in the Apache license to submit
work back to the copyright holder, much less Apache. Wherever did you
get that notion?
It's your choice, but personally I don't see the problem with
requiring that copyright notices include the copyright information
from all copyright holders. It's hardly a marketing question, and
barely a restriction. After all, you're requiring that with the BSD
license, too. With respect to copyright attribution, there's hardly
any difference between the Apache license and the BSD or MIT licenses.
Why are you even open-sourcing your software given your concerns?
--
Lew