[go-nuts] Why a BSD License and not Apache 2.0 License

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Walter Schulze wrote:

Our company is thinking of open sourcing multiple software packages written
in Go under the Apache 2.0 License. We would like to know why Go decided on
a BSD license instead of Apache 2.0 which, as I understand it, is prefered
by google?

On 19 November 2012 20:15, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Walter Schulze
wrote:
Only because the BSD license is simpler and the Go developers had good
past experiences with it. As you know we also added a patent
disclaimer.

If you feel the Apache license fits your needs better, by all means go for
it.

Ian

On Monday, November 19, 2012 12:30:28 PM UTC-6, Walter Schulze wrote:
So I guess the Apache 2.0 License should be fine, given we start a project
from scratch.

Let's try a concrete example which is a little more complicated.

If we copy the "go/scanner" and modify some of it to scan extra character
sequences for a new project.
Can we license this under Apache 2.0?

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Walter Schulze wrote:

If we copy the "go/scanner" and modify some of it to scan extra character
sequences for a new project.
Can we license this under Apache 2.0?

What are the implications?

I would guess it should be fine if we keep the BSD license in those files
that we copied and modified.
Do we also need to make the BSD license file available in binary format?
Would we also will need a LICENSE file which includes both licenses?

On 19 November 2012 20:48, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Walter Schulze
wrote:
You are asking legal questions on a programming mailing list, you will
have to judge for yourself the quality of the replies that you get.

The general trend that I've observed in free software when copying
files from one project to another is to simply retain the original
license for that file. But if you want to relicense, then, yes, my
understanding is that there is no conflict between Apache 2.0 and New
BSD. The resulting file will effectively be under Apache 2.0. Yes,
you should keep the existing BSD license--you don't have any
permission to remove it. Yes, your LICENSE file or equivalent should
include both licenses.

Ian

You are asking legal questions on a programming mailing list, you will
have to judge for yourself the quality of the replies that you get.

On Monday, November 19, 2012 2:19:12 PM UTC-6, kortschak wrote:
But interestingly, x := golang_nuts.(*Lawyer) runs without issue.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Walter Schulze wrote:

If we have a derivative work, we have to include both licenses.
This includes the copyright statement, which includes the copyright holder's
name.

So it wouldn't matter if we license it under the same BSD or a different
Apache 2.0, we still need to include both licenses?

2012/11/20 Walter Schulze <awalterschulze@gmail.com>:
Ok so let's try one more little detail.

If we have a derivative work, we have to include both licenses.
This includes the copyright statement, which includes the copyright holder's
name.

So it wouldn't matter if we license it under the same BSD or a different
Apache 2.0, we still need to include both licenses?

--

On 20 November 2012 17:44, Devon H. O'Dell wrote:

2012/11/20 Walter Schulze <awalterschulze@gmail.com>:
It wouldn't matter what you license *your* work under because you own
*your* work. You do *not* own the work of the other contributors, and
these contributors have stated that you *must* include the copyright
statement, the names of the copyright holders, *and* the list of
conditions following.

--dho