mchamber at macromedia.com
Tue Jun 14 14:44:20 PDT 2005
Yes. We pretty much replaced Apache with Macromedia in the text.
Again, the main reason we choose a license based on apache is that
the apache license was perfect for what we wanted to do. It is well
know, pretty straight forward and not very long.
Also, the more complex the license, the longer it would take for me
to get it approved by Macromedia lawyers, and the more chances they
would find something that the didn't like.
This is really one of the first projects we have done like this, so
we are taking baby steps. However, assuming this goes well, I can see
us spending the time to create something like a "Macromedia Open
Source License", which would be more generic, and which we could
submit for OSI approval.
Hope that helps...
mesh at macromedia.com
On Jun 14, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>>> Well, by basing it on the Apache 1.1 license, we had hoped to make
>>> it more familiar and readable (we particularly liked the Apache
>>> license since it is very concise).
>>> Is there something in the license we used that is not clear? It is
>>> pretty much the same as the apache 1.1 license.
> My english is getting bad at this time of the day...
> Not exactly "not clear". I'm not a lawyer, so I can't read between
> lines :)
> It's just that if you like Apache 1.1 license (which is OSI
> approved is it
> ?) then why not chosing it without any further modification ? Did
> you only
> replaced "Apache Foundation" by "Macromedia" ?
> What about BSD license / LGPL ?
> I don't intend to start license war/fud here, I'm just curious
> about MM
> point of view about OS licenses.
> osflash mailing list
> osflash at osflash.org
More information about the osflash