Thursday October 21, 2004
Thursday October 21, 2004
AppFuse's License Someone sent me an e-mail today and made me aware that the Commons Attribute License that AppFuse uses only applies to documents and such:
"Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.
Because of this, I'm thinking of switching to use an Apache 2 License. This seems to be the friendliest license for open source. Basically, all I want to do is try to get folks that use AppFuse to give it some credit. Which really means they're marketing it in a sense. More marketing -> more users -> (hopefully) I'll stay employed and the product will get better.
The only pain I can see about licensing with an Apache License is they want you to add a short copyright notice at the top. But I'm not really handing the copyright of AppFuse over to ASF, am I? Do I have to add this copyright to all my .java files? I know that Spring does this, but... ugh ... seems rather unnecessary.
Posted in Java
at Oct 21 2004, 10:54:08 AM MDT
11 Comments
Search This Site
Recent Entries
- What's Next
- Jack's Mohawk
- LinkedIn Cuts 10% (a.k.a. The Journey is Over)
- Happy Birthday Abbie!
- Moving from Spring's XML to Annotations in AppFuse
- Free Maven Training in New Orleans on Election Day
- AppFuse Light ยป AppFuse, Maven Archetypes and Shared Web Assets
- Great Weekend in Montana
- Colorado Software Summit 2008 Wrapup
- RESTful Web Applications with Subbu Allamaraju
.V
Posted by Vic on October 21, 2004 at 11:13 AM MDT #
Posted by Nathan Anderson on October 21, 2004 at 12:53 PM MDT #
<pre style="margin-left: 30px"> APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a file or class name and description of purpose be included on the same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier identification within third-party archives. Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
Craig
Posted by Craig McClanahan on October 21, 2004 at 12:58 PM MDT #
When our legal department where I work found out that we where not putting a copy statement at the top of our code, they had a fit. So we used it to add the statement and format our code in one pass. actually made life kinda easy. couldn't imagine going through and hand editing all our classes.
Posted by Paul Lofte on October 21, 2004 at 07:55 PM MDT #
Posted by Stefan Bodewig on October 22, 2004 at 08:19 AM MDT #
Posted by Sam Newman on October 22, 2004 at 08:34 AM MDT #
Posted by Kevin Williams on October 22, 2004 at 10:49 PM MDT #
Posted by Sam Newman on October 23, 2004 at 06:15 AM MDT #
It appears that Marc Fleury's argument is that the original BSD license and others like it make it too easy to take other's work and pass it off as your own. If it's my work, I don't want others passing it off as their own without giving me due credit. Linux, MySQL, and JBoss all have very profitable businesses while making the source freely available. If it were easier for someone to take the code and pass it off as their own, those businesses would be in trouble.
What made me go with LGPL is not only Marc Fleury's arguments but the fact that GPL-incompatible licenses ( see FSF site ) mostly allow use with GPL & LGPL, so my software will have less restricted use under LGPL than if I chose BSD or Apache2. In the past, I've used dual licenses, such as Mozilla 1.1 & LGPL, which is allowed by the FSF. Perhaps the most deciding factor should be your target audience. If your software needs to be tightly linked to Apache software, then the Apache2 license might be your best bet.
Posted by Kevin Williams on October 23, 2004 at 07:48 AM MDT #
Posted by Gutemberg Vieira on October 29, 2004 at 09:06 AM MDT #
Posted by Rory Winston on November 09, 2004 at 07:31 AM MST #