Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses

Re:Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses by ghaff on Saturday March 09, 2019 @03:17PM (#19348224)

The fact that MIT and BSD are decades-old licenses that don't address things like patents or that, generally, are not tightly-written legal documents isn't especially news.

I find it a little curious that Apache is pretty much mentioned just in passing (to point out that it's written in legalese) given that's mostly the preferred license for significant (as in corporate/foundation-backed) new projects wanting a permissive license. It feels a bit like critiquing a strawman.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses by kemitchell on Sunday March 10, 2019 @12:12AM (#19350432)

Both Blue Oak and Apache are relatively modern permissive licenses, but they differ intentionally in design. In the short to medium term, I foresee that many projects will continue to choose Apache where contributions from large software patent holders are essential, because of Apache's complex rules on patent scope. At the same time, I think large software patent holders will prefer to receive code under the uncomplicated Blue Oak patent grant, even as they insist on Apache's mazelike compromise for outbound contributions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Deprecation Notice: MIT and BSD licenses by iceninenines on Saturday March 09, 2019 @03:30PM (#19348299)

Puppet, a freemium services FOSS model, switched licenses a bunch of times but settled on Apache. Depending on the use-case, there can be legal problems on customers' sides including certain projects in hardware, software, SaaS products or even just using them with onerous licenses like GPL3 and AGPL. The license's restrictions on use combined with the type of use makes all the difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]