Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

Daniel Dekany
I would like to change the licence of FreeMarker from the 4-clause
BSD-style licence to Apache License 2.0. The copyright owner would
also change from "The Visigoth Software Society" (VSS) to "Attila
Szegedi, Dániel Dékány, Jonathan Revusky" (they are the current
project owners according the CLA) as VSS is inactive. This I would
like to do as soon as possible, like even starting from FreeMarker
2.3.21.

Attila, Jonathan, do you agree, or want something differently?

Anybody has advices or any comments on this mater? (Like, if you
depend heavily on FreeMarker and have a company lawyer to ask, that
would great. All help is appreciated!)

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:

Build for Windows Store.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

Attila Szegedi-3
I'm somewhat interested in the "why".

The only substantial difference I see between the two licenses is that Apache also has patent indemnification clauses. Admittedly, I think that's a good thing, but I'm wondering if that's a substantial need for most of our users. 

One specific issue where BSD is more permissive than Apache is that BSD is one-way compatible with GPLv2 (e.g. you can incorporate BSD software into GPLv2 software), but Apache isn't, specifically because of the patent indemnification language that GPLv2 lacks; Apache is one-way compatible with GPLv3 though.

So, one consequence of the switch from BSD to Apache would be that people could no longer incorporate FreeMarker into software that's offered under GPLv2. I'm not saying that I'm against the move, just saying that I want to make sure everybody understands the implications.

Attila.



On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like to change the licence of FreeMarker from the 4-clause
BSD-style licence to Apache License 2.0. The copyright owner would
also change from "The Visigoth Software Society" (VSS) to "Attila
Szegedi, Dániel Dékány, Jonathan Revusky" (they are the current
project owners according the CLA) as VSS is inactive. This I would
like to do as soon as possible, like even starting from FreeMarker
2.3.21.

Attila, Jonathan, do you agree, or want something differently?

Anybody has advices or any comments on this mater? (Like, if you
depend heavily on FreeMarker and have a company lawyer to ask, that
would great. All help is appreciated!)

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

Daniel Dekany
The problem with our licence is the advertisement clause. With that,
our license is not even OSI-approved (anymore?), and most importantly,
many has complained about this restriction. To fix that, we could just
switch to 3-clause BSD license. But I thought that if we change the
licence anyway, ASL 2 would be better, as it's far more widely used
and as such more recognized in the Java world. Corporate layers can
have surprising ideas (like, some may will miss the patent
indemnification clause in the future... I really don't know), so I
thought the safest thing to do is to join the herd.

That ASL 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 is a good point, however, given
how omnipresent ASL 2 is in the Java ecosystem, I wonder what will use
FreeMarker (especially a new version of it) and yet not have any ASL 2
dependency. So is that a real problem?

Note the other important change as well: the owner will change. Any
comments on that?

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 2:55:45 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:

> I'm somewhat interested in the "why".
>
> The only substantial difference I see between the two licenses is
> that Apache also has patent indemnification clauses. Admittedly, I
> think that's a good thing, but I'm wondering if that's a substantial
> need for most of our users.
>
> One specific issue where BSD is more permissive than Apache is that
> BSD is one-way compatible with GPLv2 (e.g. you can incorporate BSD
> software into GPLv2 software), but Apache isn't, specifically
> because of the patent indemnification language that GPLv2 lacks;
> Apache is one-way compatible with GPLv3 though.
>
> So, one consequence of the switch from BSD to Apache would be that
> people could no longer incorporate FreeMarker into software that's
> offered under GPLv2. I'm not saying that I'm against the move, just
> saying that I want to make sure everybody understands the implications.
>
> Attila.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I would like to change the licence of FreeMarker from the 4-clause
> BSD-style licence to Apache License 2.0. The copyright owner would
> also change from "The Visigoth Software Society" (VSS) to "Attila
> Szegedi, Dániel Dékány, Jonathan Revusky" (they are the current
> project owners according the CLA) as VSS is inactive. This I would
> like to do as soon as possible, like even starting from FreeMarker
> 2.3.21.
>
> Attila, Jonathan, do you agree, or want something differently?
>
> Anybody has advices or any comments on this mater? (Like, if you
> depend heavily on FreeMarker and have a company lawyer to ask, that
> would great. All help is appreciated!)
>
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

Daniel Dekany
OK... I wasn't careful enough regarding what's wrong with our current
licence, although the end goal doesn't change (i.e., we need a
standard licence). Actually our "advertisement clause" is not like the
one in the old BSD license, and I don't think we have anything wrong
there. So what are people talking about... I guess they just saw "BSD"
and 4 clauses. (We say "BSD-like" everywhere, and I really don't know
why.) However, I believe it's not GPL compatible, unlike BSD-s, as it
has those strong prohibitions on the use of product and organization
names, for which ASL 1.1 was deemed GPL-incompatible. Last not least,
it has the quirk that it doesn't require distributing the copyright
files with the derivative product if that only includes the binary
form. (Because, um...) Both proposed licenses require that. I hope
that's not a problem...

So please cast your votes:

http://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0
or
http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

I vote for Apache 2 as it's more common in Java, and was developed by
an organization that's a key player in the Java world... so I hope
it's more engineered for that. (BTW, even gnu.org recommends it over
3-caluse BSD:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 3:40:11 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote:
[snip]

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [FreeMarker-user] Changing license to Apache License 2.0?

Daniel Dekany
In reply to this post by Attila Szegedi-3
So then, starting FreeMarker 2.3.21:
- The license will be "Apache License, Version 2.0"
- The copyright owner will change from "Visigoth Software Society" to:
  "Attila Szegedi, Daniel Dekany, Jonathan Revusky"

If anybody has anything comments on this matter, go ahead.

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


Thursday, August 8, 2013, 10:48:41 AM, Jonathan Revusky wrote:

> Sorry to have been so slow. I have no objection to the proposed license changes.
>
> JR
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Attila Szegedi <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Oh, I'm totally fine with owner names' change.
>
> Yeah, changing to 3-clause BSD would also work. I'm actually fine
> with Apache too; if anyone's using FM with GPLv2, they won't be able
> to update, but then it's at least a decision we consciously made.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The problem with our licence is the advertisement clause. With that,
> our license is not even OSI-approved (anymore?), and most importantly,
> many has complained about this restriction. To fix that, we could just
> switch to 3-clause BSD license. But I thought that if we change the
> licence anyway, ASL 2 would be better, as it's far more widely used
> and as such more recognized in the Java world. Corporate layers can
> have surprising ideas (like, some may will miss the patent
> indemnification clause in the future... I really don't know), so I
> thought the safest thing to do is to join the herd.
>
> That ASL 2 is incompatible with GPLv2 is a good point, however, given
> how omnipresent ASL 2 is in the Java ecosystem, I wonder what will use
> FreeMarker (especially a new version of it) and yet not have any ASL 2
> dependency. So is that a real problem?
>
> Note the other important change as well: the owner will change. Any
> comments on that?
>
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel Dekany
>
>
> Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 2:55:45 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>
>> I'm somewhat interested in the "why".
>>
>> The only substantial difference I see between the two licenses is
>> that Apache also has patent indemnification clauses. Admittedly, I
>> think that's a good thing, but I'm wondering if that's a substantial
>> need for most of our users.
>>
>> One specific issue where BSD is more permissive than Apache is that
>> BSD is one-way compatible with GPLv2 (e.g. you can incorporate BSD
>> software into GPLv2 software), but Apache isn't, specifically
>> because of the patent indemnification language that GPLv2 lacks;
>> Apache is one-way compatible with GPLv3 though.
>>
>> So, one consequence of the switch from BSD to Apache would be that
>> people could no longer incorporate FreeMarker into software that's
>> offered under GPLv2. I'm not saying that I'm against the move, just
>> saying that I want to make sure everybody understands the implications.
>>
>> Attila.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Daniel Dekany <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I would like to change the licence of FreeMarker from the 4-clause
>> BSD-style licence to Apache License 2.0. The copyright owner would
>> also change from "The Visigoth Software Society" (VSS) to "Attila
>> Szegedi, Dániel Dékány, Jonathan Revusky" (they are the current
>> project owners according the CLA) as VSS is inactive. This I would
>> like to do as soon as possible, like even starting from FreeMarker
>> 2.3.21.
>>
>> Attila, Jonathan, do you agree, or want something differently?
>>
>> Anybody has advices or any comments on this mater? (Like, if you
>> depend heavily on FreeMarker and have a company lawyer to ask, that
>> would great. All help is appreciated!)
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Daniel Dekany
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> FreeMarker-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-user
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
> Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
> Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
> Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> FreeMarker-user mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-user
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License and ownership changes starting from FreeMarker 2.3.21

Daniel Dekany
In reply to this post by Attila Szegedi-3
Starting FreeMarker 2.3.21:

- The license will be "Apache License, Version 2.0". Thus we will have
  a well-known standard licence instead of a custom one.

- The copyright owner will change from "Visigoth Software Society" to
  "Attila Szegedi, Daniel Dekany, Jonathan Revusky". They are/were the
  key developers/maintainers of the FreeMarker 2.x series, so there's
  no real change behind this, only a legal change, as Visigoth
  Software Society is practically defunct.

If anybody has any comments on this matter, please tell us!

--
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
FreeMarker-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemarker-devel