RE: Calabash licensing

For my project(s) I've chosen the simplest license I could find that
accomplished what I wanted.
The BSD Simplified License.
Is simple so NAL's can read it.
It does what I want which is says you can do anything you want with the code
except call it your own take away my rights to use it.
Then I include the license files for all dependent libraries I bundle and
punt on the issue :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_
BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29

My IANAL understanding is that this is compatible with all the other OS
product's licenses .. although they are usually more strict, 
I haven't (chosen to ) figure(d) out how the BSD license of *my code*
violates use of *their code* using their license.






----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org

-----Original Message-----
From: xproc-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:xproc-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Norman Walsh
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:52 AM
To: XProc Dev
Subject: Re: Calabash licensing

Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> writes:
>
>   What license is Calabash released under?

It's a mess. I believe the answer is GPL or CDDL+GPL, your choice. My
understanding is that CDDL+GPL is a commercial-friendly license, but
IANAL. Because I started the work while I was at Sun, those were the
only licensing options that wouldn't have required months of meetings
after which my request ot do something else would have been denied
anyway.

I can't decide, partly because IANAL, if my V2 rewrite can be released
under any other license. I'd prefer to use Apache or some other more
open license, but, sigh, really, I'd rather write code than f*ck about
trying to work out the licensing issues.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
www.marklogic.com

Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 17:34:23 UTC