Permissive License - ASL 2.0 | MIT | BSD

[sirinath]

Can you consider a more permissive license like: ASL 2.0 | MIT | BSD

[buybackoff]

Nope. We do not have a big corporate sponsor and did this project for solving problems, not for PR or cross-sales, and hope that anyone who have the same problems will contribute - the library is quite small and self-contained. Also, we (will) likely depend on modified NetMQ. Finally, see the post by @hintjens. ZeroMQ/NetMQ case shows that LGPL is well balanced, it is not (A)GPL and allows usage without restrictions, it is not viral if you do not copy-paste code but link to it.

Why would you want to use the code without syncing to the upstream? This kind of code - core low-level calculations primitives - benefits the most from wide adoption and community review and feedback.

[sirinath]

Also see: PerfectlySoft/Perfect#131

[buybackoff]

TL;DR;...
Well, you have tons of other permissive FOSS projects to choose from. The license issue is not something to discuss. If you like this project so much, we could negotiate a commercial option (however, this is not something I am ready to spend much time). Otherwise it sounds like you just want some free lunch (especially given that you are pinging almost every other project on GitHub about such an issue). Currently I care about end users, and they do not care which license the project has.

[sirinath]

We are a small outfit and license matters to us. Say if we do a POC using a lib less number of clients have in their approved license list we less likely get a sale or work.

[hintjens]

Fwiw we've found that MPLv2 gives us the same benefits with less angst for
corporate users.
On 19 Mar 2016 17:17, "Victor Baybekov" notifications@github.com wrote:

TL;DR;...
Well, you have tons of other permissive FOSS projects to choose from. The
license issue is not something to discuss. If you like this project so
much, we could negotiate a commercial option (however, this is not
something I am ready to spend much time). Otherwise it sounds like you just
want some free lunch (especially given that you are pinging almost every
other project on GitHub about such an issue). Currently I care about end
users, and they do not care which license the project has.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)

[buybackoff]

@hintjens yes, I am thinking about MPL2 after learning about it from ZeroMQ and related projects. I just do not understand all subtleties yet, while GPL is well understood, safe and default choice.

[sirinath]

Issue here is if we have to inevitably modify a file due to a bug, quick fix or workaround work paid by a client then this might not be the client's copyrights or governed by our contractual obligations. MPL is OK for internal use not for contractors and outsourcing.

[sirinath]

ASL 2.0, MIT and BSD are the safest bet that any potential client will have whitelisted hence safest to use in POC.

[hintjens]

One should always as a matter of principle get permission to modify
pre-existing open source works as a contractor, if such projects are the
basis for a work. And then to republish such patches under the existing
open source license, and under the name of the contractor. This removes the
corporate fear of liability.
On 19 Mar 2016 17:33, "Suminda Dharmasena" notifications@github.com wrote:

Issue here is if we have to inevitably modify a file due to a bug, quick
fix or workaround work paid by a client then this might not be the client's
copyrights or governed by our contractual obligations. MPL is OK for
internal use not for contractors and outsourcing.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)

[sirinath]

The above issue is not applicable to licenses like ASL 2.0, MIT and BSD. Also getting permissions is a overhead especially for small outfits. So most beneficial is to small time users are licenses like ASL 2.0, MIT and BSD. Also they are whitelisted by every existing and potential client.

[hintjens]

Even with those licenses a contractor would be forced to make and maintain
a dark fork without permission to submit patches.
On 19 Mar 2016 18:05, "Suminda Dharmasena" notifications@github.com wrote:

The above issue is not applicable to licenses like ASL 2.0, MIT and BSD.
Also getting permissions is a overhead especially for small outfits. So
most beneficial is to small time users are licenses like ASL 2.0, MIT and
BSD. Also they are whitelisted by every existing and potential client.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment)

[sirinath]

The overhead I meant is the negotiation overhead and cost if layers get involved.

You only have to maintain a fork if a dependent project gets abandoned or certain blocking bugs do not get fixes which is not that often but if it inevitably happens you need to be covered.

I have never encountered having to take any special permission if all dependencies are permissive.

[buybackoff]

@sirinath Relicensed as MPL2, which gives you any freedom for proprietary usage, same as ZeroMQ.

[sirinath]

We now have an internal project with does something similar for Scala but still we prefer ASL 2.0 as if we port any code which is under MPL then it should be MPL.