Consider relicense about getssl HOT 10 CLOSED

I have no objections to making it more permissive. I'm not familiar with the detailed differences with Apache License 2.0. Do you know a good summary of differences?

from getssl.

• Summary of Apache 2.0
• Summary of MPLv2
• Summary of GPLv2

My own summary:

• Apache 2.0 - Like MIT/X11/BSD, but with patent protection
• MPLv2 - Like GPL, but only protects itself. A second file that's combined "in-memory" is not required to be GPL. It's OK to combine in-memory with files of differing licenses.

from getssl.

Upvote for Apache, because:

• with MPL one would have to include the full original script in case of
  redistribution with modifications. Feels a bit awkward in case of a
  shell-script.
• with Apache you can redistribute and reuse with modifications but must
  state the changes, which seems more appropriate for a community-project.
  Am 18.02.2016 00:30 schrieb "Brian Bennett" [email protected]:

• Summary of Apache 2.0
  https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-(apache-2.0)
• Summary of MPLv2
  https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2.0-(mpl-2)
• Summary of GPLv2
  https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2

My own summary:

• Apache 2.0 - Like MIT/X11/BSD, but with patent protection
• MPLv2 - Like GPL, but only protects itself. A second file that's
  combined "in-memory" is not required to be GPL. It's OK to combine
  in-memory with files of differing licenses.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#24 (comment).

from getssl.

@koter84, @dstosberg, any thoughts? Please raise objections if you have any.

from getssl.

No objections against Apache 2.0 from me. I've never cared about MPL enough to fully read and understand their "license steward" mechanics.

from getssl.

I prefer licenses which don't allow commercial use without distributing the changed sources..
with GPL you can still use the scripts in a commercial environment (on your server, or behind a API), but you cannot include them as part of a closed source application. I personally feel that that is permissive enough.

from getssl.

It sounds like MPLv2 is the best choice then, since there's not really such a thing as a closed-source shell script. The copyleft nature of MPLv2 ensures that the files from this project remain open, even if included in a proprietary product.

from getssl.

Not being an expert ( at all ) on these licences ... can you give me an example of what someone might want to be able to do, that they aren't permitted to do on the current license ?

from getssl.

The thing that most readily comes to mind would be creating an independent script that sources one of the included scripts. Though, this is sort of a grey area. Many terms in the GPL really only apply to binaries and don't make much sense in the context of a shell script.

MPLv2 would remove the ambiguity, clearly stating that this file itself, and its contents are protected under copyleft terms. Independent works do not need to carry the same license regardless of how they interact with the covered files.

from getssl.

Reading up and looking at the various comments, I'll leave things as they are for the moment (since it would need the agreement of all to change it )

If someone wants to create an independent code that includes this script, which they don't want to keep as GPL, they're free to ask about using it.

from getssl.