As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML). We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good change for IronRuby? ~Jimmy
Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi < Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote:> As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft > Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally > we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the > license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby > doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching > our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache > License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). > However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby > license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and > YAML). > > We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think > adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good > change for IronRuby? > > ~Jimmy > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100604/aa9655be/attachment.html>
Apache would be wonderful! BSD or MIT would be even better. From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:13 AM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi <Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com<mailto:Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com>> wrote: As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML). We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good change for IronRuby? ~Jimmy _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core Join our mailing list and stay current on our products and services designed to build your business - visit http://www.xactware.com/mailinglist ________________________________ This email is intended solely for the recipient. It may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information or material. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this email and any attachments and notify the sender of the error. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100604/cdc25bb5/attachment.html>
+0,5 for Apache +1 for MIT or BSD On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Jeff Lewis <jdlewis at xactware.com> wrote:> Apache would be wonderful!? BSD or MIT would be even better. > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:13 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? > > > > Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi > <Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote: > > As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft > Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally we > hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the > license that IronRuby uses. ?In several instances, users ask why IronRuby > doesn''t use a more popular license. ?We are therefore considering switching > our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache > License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). > However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby > license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and > YAML). > > We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. ?Do you think > adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good > change for IronRuby? > > ~Jimmy > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > Join our mailing list and stay current on our products and services designed > to build your business ? visit http://www.xactware.com/mailinglist > > ________________________________ > This email is intended solely for the recipient. It may contain privileged, > proprietary or confidential information or material. If you are not the > intended recipient, please delete this email and any attachments and notify > the sender of the error. > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >-- Douglas Campos (qmx) +55 11 6762 5959
I know that MIT or BSD are by far the most-used licenses for Ruby libs, but Apache 2 has had the most success in greasing the open-source wheels at Microsoft, and it''s a license both teams can agree on. From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 4:13 AM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi <Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com<mailto:Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com>> wrote: As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and YAML). We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good change for IronRuby? ~Jimmy _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100611/f48283f6/attachment.html>
Anyone else have any thoughts on switching to Apache 2? I''d hope that a license change will help with the "what is the Microsoft Public License" confusion in the vast majority of the open-source world ... what are your thoughts?> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Campos > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:15 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? > > +0,5 for Apache > +1 for MIT or BSD > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Jeff Lewis <jdlewis at xactware.com> wrote: > > Apache would be wonderful!? BSD or MIT would be even better. > > > > > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Mark Rendle > > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:13 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? > > > > > > > > Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even > MIT)? > > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi > > <Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft > > Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally > we > > hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the > > license that IronRuby uses. ?In several instances, users ask why IronRuby > > doesn''t use a more popular license. ?We are therefore considering > switching > > our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache > > License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). > > However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the > Ruby > > license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and > > YAML). > > > > We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. ?Do you > think > > adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a > good > > change for IronRuby? > > > > ~Jimmy > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > > > Join our mailing list and stay current on our products and services designed > > to build your business ? visit http://www.xactware.com/mailinglist > > > > ________________________________ > > This email is intended solely for the recipient. It may contain privileged, > > proprietary or confidential information or material. If you are not the > > intended recipient, please delete this email and any attachments and > notify > > the sender of the error. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > > > -- > Douglas Campos (qmx) > +55 11 6762 5959 > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Thought it might be something like that. Fair enough then. Apache 2.0 is a step in the right direction. On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Jimmy Schementi < Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote:> I know that MIT or BSD are by far the most-used licenses for Ruby libs, > but Apache 2 has had the most success in greasing the open-source wheels at > Microsoft, and it?s a license both teams can agree on. > > > > *From:* ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto: > ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark Rendle > *Sent:* Friday, June 04, 2010 4:13 AM > *To:* ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? > > > > Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi < > Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote: > > As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft > Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally > we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the > license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby > doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching > our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache > License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). > However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby > license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and > YAML). > > We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think > adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good > change for IronRuby? > > ~Jimmy > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100614/890733ea/attachment.html>
The only problem I see is that others may question why MSPL isn''t good enough. I don''t know if that''s a bad thing; I was always somewhat confused by the existence of a new license that didn''t seem altogether different from others. Apache 2 works for me. Ryan Riley On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Jimmy Schementi < Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote:> I know that MIT or BSD are by far the most-used licenses for Ruby libs, > but Apache 2 has had the most success in greasing the open-source wheels at > Microsoft, and it?s a license both teams can agree on. > > > > *From:* ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto: > ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark Rendle > *Sent:* Friday, June 04, 2010 4:13 AM > *To:* ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] License change? > > > > Any specific reasons for choosing Apache, as opposed to BSD (or even MIT)? > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Jimmy Schementi < > Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote: > > As you probably know, IronRuby is currently licensed under the Microsoft > Public License (http://opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html). Occasionally > we hear feedback, questions, and a general lack of familiarity about the > license that IronRuby uses. In several instances, users ask why IronRuby > doesn''t use a more popular license. We are therefore considering switching > our license to a well-known open-source license; specifically the Apache > License, Version 2.0 (http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php). > However, the pieces of IronRuby which are licensed under CPL and the Ruby > license will not change (pieces from MRI which IronRuby redistributes, and > YAML). > > We''d like to hear your feedback before we make any decisions. Do you think > adopting a more popular license, such as the Apache License, would be a good > change for IronRuby? > > ~Jimmy > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20100617/72976c72/attachment.html>