July 11, 2011
About Apache License at Google

Although all Chris DiBona’s interview at derstandard.at is interesting, I’d like to point to this fragment:

derStandard.at: Why did you choose the Apache license as a default?

Chris DiBona: We really like it, it has a couple of things which make it very modern. Obviously you are getting a copyright grant, you are free to use and modify the software - like with all open source licenses. But it also says for any patents that we have in relation to that software we are giving you a license free of charge, and your users can too. The only exception is, if you sue us - well you don’t have that grant anymore. If you don’t - it’s yours, you don’t have to worry about us sneaking up on you later.

That’s a very good reason to use the Apache License (version 2.0) over MIT or BSD licenses.

by jjm on 6:57pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy6__ebS
(View comments) 
(Notes: 19)
  
Filed under: Licensing Apache License Apache Google Open Source MIT BSD 
October 9, 2010
"Many months ago I started contacting all F-Spot contributors and now I am happy to announce that the process has been completed: F-Spot is now licensed under the MIT X11 license."

—

From Renaissance man: Legal.

The main reason behind that decision seems to be making possible code sharing between F-Spot (a GPL licensed application) and Banshee (MIT/X11 license). F-Spot was able to get Banshee code, but Banshee wasn’t without moving to GPL.

So the solution seems to be moving F-Spot into a more permissive license, that IMHO it’s a wrong move.

F-Spot is still open source, and I don’t think that will change anything from users point of view (at least short term), but if the argument it’s hey, it’s still free… you FSF Taliban!, I wonder if there’s a reason to not move Banshee into GPL.

by jjm on 2:36pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy1C38uA
(View comments) 
Filed under: F-Spot Banshee GPL MIT/X11 Licensing compatible 
August 29, 2009
FFmpeg Hall of Shame

“This is a list of projects or companies violating FFmpeg’s license. The list is part of an effort to get them to comply with the licensing terms by shaming them in public.”

They say that linking to the page should help, so here you are.

It’s impressive how long it’s the list, and I believe all the offending software is closed source. I wonder why, probably it’s just lack of knowledge about licensing (LGPL this time).

The amazing part it’s that every software in that list has an EULA, and I bet they encourage its compliance. Shame on you!

by jjm on 11:12am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZyAQ7Hb
(View comments) 
Filed under: LGPL FFmpeg Shame Licensing Violation 
July 31, 2009
Building Packages and Licensing Issues

I want to program a little GUI tool to upload (and resize) my photos into Flickr, and I found Flickr::API very easy to use.

Unfortunately it’s not packaged for Fedora, and before I could realize what was happening, I was packaging Perl modules. But then I’ve found a little problem that may explain why Flickr::API isn’t packaged yet.

Flickr::API has one unpackaged dependency: XML::Parser::Lite::Tree. It’s very simple to package (my first Perl RPM ever!), but its license is just Perl Artistic License, that it’s in the bad licenses list for Fedora project.

This is very disappointing. Instead of hacking, I’m packaging Perl modules and writing to the authors to ask if they would be so kind to change the license and then I could try to submit the package to be included in Fedora.

I hope Cal Henderson (XML::Parser::Lite::Tree author) agrees, and later I’ll ask to the Flickr::API authors to do the same, or I’ll have to look for another Perl module.

The license change it’s so easy: they only have to agree to use an alternate valid license (e.g. the GPL), and then their software would be easily accessible to all the people using Fedora.

It’s a nice benefit for a little licensing change, isn’t it?

Update: Sometimes I’m a little absentminded, because I didn’t noticed Cal Henderson it’s also the author of the cool Flickr::API module. He has replied my email and the modules are now under Artistic License 2.0, that it’s OK for Fedora. Thank you very much Cal for your software!

by jjm on 6:10pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZPorZy97sTD
(View comments) 
Filed under: licensing Fedora Perl Artistic License GPL