Changes between Version 35 and Version 36 of ApertureLicense


Ignore:
Timestamp:
10/20/05 15:40:23 (19 years ago)
Author:
sauermann
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • ApertureLicense

    v35 v36  
    1 = License = 
     1= Policy = 
    22 
    33The Aperture project is published with the following licensing policy. 
    … …  
    66 
    77Besides a framework, Aperture contains a number of concrete adapter and extractor implementations. A lot of time and effort has been put in their creation and maintenance and they are therefore licensed under a reciprocal license, meaning that changes to this code, such as functional extentions, bugfixes, performance improvements, that are redistributed in one way or another way, have to be made available to the community under the same open source license. 
     8 
     9= License = 
     10 
     11The core project interfaces and architecture are published using the AFL  
     12http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php 
     13 
     14The implementations of adapters are licensed under the OSL (Open Software License). 
     15http://www.opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php 
     16 
     17The use of these two licenses allows developers to implement datasource/extractor implementations under any license they want. The public implementations of Aperture are under the OSL, which is a Reciprocal license, meaning that changes to the DataSource implementations published by us have to be fed back to the community.  
    818 
    919== Aduna's Wishes == 
    … …  
    3343== To Discuss == 
    3444 
    35 '''still open: AFL or BSD for core: If BSD is similiar to AFL, Leo would recommend BSD as it is more commonly used.''' 
     45'''Discussion closes, we came to a conclusion, see above''' 
    3646 
    3747Herko> I am not worried that using a less familiar license would reduce acceptance of the project in the community. I'm convinced that the majority of developers will accept *any* Open Source license. To use the BSD license just because it's more common would be a mistake, I think.