Timeline for What if anything is wrong with the Apache License 2.0?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 28, 2019 at 15:50 | answer | added | vonbrand | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 23, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://opensource.stackexchange.com/ with https://opensource.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 30, 2016 at 15:18 | answer | added | MvG | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 22:44 | history | edited | Bruce Adams | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 406 characters in body
|
| Aug 25, 2016 at 9:05 | comment | added | Zimm i48 | Then COIL might be a good choice indeed. Although depending on the size of your project you may be giving too much weight to a patent clause. While your project stays small and no contributor holds any patent, this clause does not bring anything: opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2554/… (applies also to COIL) | |
| Aug 25, 2016 at 0:17 | comment | added | Bruce Adams | I recall I wanted the MIT license originally then came across this news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3402450 A problem with the common licenses is the lack of a patent clause (though I am in the EU where this shouldn't matter, my software might not stay there). I think that is what led me to COIL. | |
| Aug 24, 2016 at 0:03 | comment | added | Bruce Adams | Now that you point it out I can't see COIL listed on opensource.org as it is rather less popular. Back to the drawing board again? What if anything is wrong with the MPL? Is a copyfree license a crayon license? Added as opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4368/… | |
| Aug 23, 2016 at 23:26 | comment | added | Bruce Adams | I've done yet more reading around (when can I finally stop and get back to coding?) and I agree the MPL 2.0 is a good weak copyleft (but not copyfree) license. COIL does seem simpler though. It is also copyfree/permissive rather than copyleft. I can't quite make up my mind whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Frankly the whole licensing choice is giving me a bad case of decision paralysis. | |
| Aug 20, 2016 at 18:32 | history | edited | unor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 136 characters in body
|
| Aug 19, 2016 at 18:39 | comment | added | Zimm i48 | It is usually considered bad practice to use open source licenses which are not widely known as it may affect the spread of your software. Companies in particular will need to ask their lawyers what they think of this particular license which is new to them. Given your criteria I would recommend an additional, well-known license which you may not have considered: MPL 2.0 has a weak copyleft, is easier to apply than LGPL, include patent provisions, and has no requirement to track changes. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 17:34 | history | edited | Zizouz212 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
We're not Stack Overflow!
|
| Aug 19, 2016 at 15:44 | comment | added | EMBLEM | Copyfree does not require a license to be GPL-compatible. The Ms-PL is copyfree, but GPL-incompatible. | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:54 | comment | added | Zizouz212 | Wow! You've clearly done your research! Excellent question, and welcome to Open Source Stack Exchange! :) | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:43 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:52 | |||||
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:41 | comment | added | Bruce Adams | note: moved from stackoverflow.com/q/38907751/1569204 | |
| Aug 19, 2016 at 14:40 | history | asked | Bruce Adams | CC BY-SA 3.0 |