[IPT] IPT Open source License

["Markus Döring (GBIF)"]

Thanks Pat,
the MPL was a quick "legacy choice" and we are currently investigating  
different options. Best bet so far seems the Apache 2.0 or MIT  
license, both widely used, GPL compliant and allowing commercial use.
Markus



On Feb 12, 2009, at 22:57, Beach, James H wrote:

>
> Many thanks Pat,
>
> I am going to dig right into this.
>
> Happy Darwin's Birthday!
>
> Jim B.
>
> _____________________________
> James H. Beach
> Biodiversity Institute
> University of Kansas
> 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
> Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
> T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
>
> No engagement = No commitment.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mergen Patricia [mailto:patricia.mergen at africamuseum.be]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:49 PM
> To: Bob Morris; Beach, James H
> Cc: ipt at lists.gbif.org; ram at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: RE: [IPT] IPT Open source License
>
> This project has made a quiet nice and recent review on the different
> open Source Licences with pro and cons
> http://www.cascadoss.eu/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&
> Itemid=68
> If it can be of any help ...
>
> Best regards
>
> Pat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipt-bounces at lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris
> Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27
> To: Beach, James H
> Cc: ipt at lists.gbif.org; ram at cs.umb.edu
> Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License
>
> I can't.
>
> I only have a few  relevant(?) opinions:
>
> - The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage
> corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs.
> For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt
> any Specify code. Is that bad?  (You may want a strategy with separate
> services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify
> servers without having to use Specify code though.  This could be a
> small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral
> license, or just plain Web Services).
>
> - A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing  
> is
> so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant
> or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to
> adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what
> their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S.
> has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other  
> country in
> the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the
> U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses.  IMO, this favors simpler,
> better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all  
> these
> things.
>
> - Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could  
> fork
> different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal,
> because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development
> probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why
> would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H <beach at ku.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for
>> the IPT?  I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
>>
>> I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and  
>> am
>
>> going through the usual decision tree:
>>
>> viral vs. non-viral
>>
>> GPL compatible or not
>>
>> and the various nuances of each license.
>>
>> I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered  
>> this.
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
>>
>> many thanks,
>>
>> Jim B.
>>
>> _____________________________
>> James H. Beach
>> Biodiversity Institute
>> University of Kansas
>> 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard
>> Lawrence, KS 66045, USA
>> T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
>>
>> No engagement = No commitment.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Robert A. Morris
> Professor of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> ram at cs.umb.edu
> http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html
> phone (+1)617 287 6466
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing list
> IPT at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>
> ###########################################
>
> This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum
>
> ________________________________________
> 12/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
>
> _______________________________________________
> IPT mailing list
> IPT at lists.gbif.org
> http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
>