[Sugar-devel] Licensing of the javascript libraries

[Simon Schampijer]

On 06/13/2013 11:29 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> On 13 June 2013 11:26, Simon Schampijer <simon at schampijer.de> wrote:
>
>> On 06/13/2013 01:32 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
>>
>>> 2013/6/7 Daniel Narvaez <dwnarvaez at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> I'm still undecided really but since it's important to make a call soon,
>>>> my
>>>> vote goes for Apache, both for sugar-web and for activities we develop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm far from expert on licenses, but given Daniel Narvaez description,
>>> I vote for Apache too.
>>>
>>> --
>>> .. manuq ..
>>>
>>
>> Mozilla for gaia seems to be going for the Apache 2 license [1]. Here are
>> two posts with some background information about the licensing [2][3].
>>
>> I could not find any information about what is the license that can/should
>> be used in the web apps developed for Firefox OS. The example apps have
>> different ones, some none, the documentation does not talk about it.
>>
>
> I guess that's left to the activity authors to decide.

In our case, if we make our libraries licensed under Apache 2
an activity author could use Apache 2 or GPL3 for his activity but not 
GPL2, correct?

Here another interesting summary of the pros and cons of licensing 
Android under ASL2 [1].

Simon

[1] 
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/11/why-google-chose-the-apache-software-license-over-gplv2/