[A]GPL vs Apache 2
Hi, If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license. Now I see a reason for people choosing other licenses, like Apache, is calling it being more permissive. Is it correct to assume "permissive" here refers to the idea of taking the code and easily changing it proprietary? Taking the code, and mixing it with other proprietary product ? -- Given the large number of mailing lists I follow, I request you to CC me in replies for quicker response signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:58:49 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hi, > > If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure > freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a > commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license. > > Now I see a reason for people choosing other licenses, like Apache, is > calling it being more permissive. > > Is it correct to assume "permissive" here refers to the idea of taking > the code and easily changing it proprietary? Taking the code, and > mixing it with other proprietary product ? Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible with as many open-source licenses as possible. pgpEZBqpHAJUl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [A]GPL vs Apache 2
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible with > as many open-source licenses as possible. The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" but they do fit the definition suggested by Ritesh and the definition used on Wikipedia and the one used by the GNU project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#LaxPermissiveLicensedSoftware -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
