Your opinion on publishing scripts/patches under Apache License 2.0?
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
I have obesrved that some hackers[2] over here are contributing scripts (in bash, java, perl, python etc.) / patches which spans only under 100 lines of code.
Free Software Foundation RECOMMENDS Apache License 2.0 in such cases where the code length is less than 300 lines.[1]
Your thoughts?
Reference:-
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort
[2] https://www.stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html
I would go even further and recommend the Expat license for those scripts, which is shorter than the Apache License 2.0.
The FSF recommends the Apache License because it also protects against patents. Also, note that you don't have to include a copy of the full license with the Apache License, so the actual text you have to include is shorter than the Expat License.
The only reason I can think of to favor the Expat License over version 2 of the Apache License is GPLv2 compatibility. Possibly compatibility with some other licenses.
You mean the MIT License right? Most people for past decade refer to the Expat/X11 license as just MIT for simplicity.
The Expat and X11 licenses are different. The X11 license contains this additional clause:
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
from the X Consortium.
X Window System is a trademark of X Consortium, Inc.
Yeah, there's still confusion on what an "MIT License" really is as the Open Source camp just says "MIT License" while the Free Software camp goes "no no no, there are actually TWO licenses" and no definitive "MIT License"
That's why I would rather go with the 2 clause (simplified) BSD license if I wanted to mimic the "MIT License" since it is an established and accepted license by both the Open Source and Free Software camps.
If the patch or script is contributed as part of a larger work it is sort of customary to use the same license as the larger work.
Indeed. And the FSF does not say otherwise: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben