News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license. Parent comment

Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by pmlnr on Sunday July 16, 2017 @07:41AM (#14781587)
"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity."

Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by bhickey on Sunday July 16, 2017 @10:08AM (#14782005)
> Public domain

There are jurisdictions that don't recognize PD grants. I can't think of a good reason to use CC0 over MIT or BSD.

> GPL (any version)

This might be doctrinaire but I won't use the (L)GPLv3 because of the AGPL linking clause:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by floatboth on Sunday July 16, 2017 @02:19PM (#14783357)
CC0, Unlicense etc. always contain fallbacks for jurisdictions without PD grants. That's the whole point of using them instead of just saying "public domain" and nothing more.

There's also the Zero-clause BSD License https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html which is the same kind of thing except it does not even mention the words "public domain".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by Hasknewbie on Sunday July 16, 2017 @09:20AM (#14781870)
If it's anything else, I would say start by checking the Open Source Initiative Web site: https://opensource.org/licenses
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by bhickey on Sunday July 16, 2017 @10:11AM (#14782013)
Still, be cautious. The OSI has approved a number of bad licenses. The UPL (https://opensource.org/licenses/UPL) stands out to me as one that should've been rejected.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by smichel17 on Sunday July 16, 2017 @10:53AM (#14782203)
Why?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by bhickey on Sunday July 16, 2017 @11:27AM (#14782370)
The discussion around its approval was contentious. My reading is that it exists primarily as an Oracle CLA. The license wasn't rigorously reviewed by non-Oracle counsel and there's some worry about hidden landmines.

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-A...

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-S...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by brianwawok on Sunday July 16, 2017 @09:32AM (#14781908)
As AGPL still on most proples danger list? Or did you not include it in your GPL any version list.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by halomru on Sunday July 16, 2017 @09:52AM (#14781958)
I can't speak for corporate lawyers, but I treat AGPL v3 similar to GPL v3 (a bit truer to the GPL spirit, but in consequence a bit stricter).

Then again, GPL v3 is on many people's danger list

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by CodeWriter23 on Sunday July 16, 2017 @03:11PM (#14783638)
Hey now, the Artistic License is also one you can trust not to bite you in the ass.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Pate... by kevinmgranger on Monday July 17, 2017 @02:00PM (#14790877)
What about MPL?
[ Parent | on HN ]