[License-review] The three license discussion

[Bruce Perens]

Just to make it clear to folks what I mean, consider these three licenses:

AGPL 3
LGPL 3
Apache 2

I submit that there are *very *few strategic purposes for Open Source
licensing that can not be carried out with one of these three, and that the
ones that can't might not even be aligned with Software Freedom / Open
Source. In addition, they:

Are compatible with each other.
Are all accepted by OSI and FSF
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2> as both Open
Source and Free Software licenses.
Each allow use by the "passive user" without restrictions or need for an
attorney.
Each have explicit patent terms.
Each has had the attention of multiple attorneys, the two GPL3-derived ones
having a committee of over 40 on the GPL3 portion of the text.

So, why don't we guide people to use this strategically coherent set? It
would seem to me to be a step forward.

    Thanks

    Bruce

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190527/97a51a23/attachment.html>