[M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership

[Jay K]

Use a "BSD" or "MIT" license. Maybe LGPL.
Don't use Apache 2.0 or Mozilla.
Don't make up your own. OpenBSD folks reject such things as not worth the (lawyer) time to understand.
OpenBSD folks reject the Apache 2.0 license for some reaosn -- maybe the previous, it is long and custom.
Best is modern BSD, which some years ago dropped a clause from the old BSD license.
See OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.

 - Jay


----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:36:21 -0500
> From: rodney_bates at lcwb.coop
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership
>
>
>
> On 10/16/2013 02:11 PM, Tony Hosking wrote:
>> I think GPL is inherently incompatible with the original DEC/SRC license.
>
> So what do you propose instead?
>
>>
>> Antony Hosking | Associate Professor | Computer Science | Purdue University
>> 305 N. University Street | West Lafayette | IN 47907 | USA
>> Mobile +1 765 427 5484
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "Rodney M. Bates" <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop> wrote:
>>
>>> I have checked in a few written-from-scratch source files without copyright/license
>>> notices recently. I plan to fix this, but wonder if there is a consensus about
>>> the choices here. We already have a hodge-podge of copyright owners and licenses
>>> in the Modula-3 repository. That may be difficult or impossible to fix, but I
>>> would like to move things in the right direction when adding all-new code.
>>>
>>> I checked in some earlier ones naming myself as owner and GPL as license.
>>> But I recall reading some hints on this list suggesting that people felt
>>> that the GPL was not a good idea here.
>>>
>>> Also, is there any organization that would be good to take ownership where
>>> possible, in order to get Modula-3 more consistent in this regard?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>