On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:59, Jason Dagit wrote:

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Are there any drawbacks to using the Apache license for Haskell packages?

I don't think so.  It looks to be almost identical to using BSD3, which is already quite popular for haskellers.

I would consider this, in itself, to be a small but significant disadvantage. Anyone who uses Haskell is going to know (and probably be comfortable with) the BSD3 license. If I find Apache-licensed code, I now have to look that up, determine the differences between it and BSD3, find out whether it's compatible with the GPL and BSD3. Basically, the cost of introducing *any* new license to a software ecosystem is non-zero. Of course, a widespread license like Apache is better than making up your own. --Max

* Jason Dagit [2011-05-09 01:59:46-0700]

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Magnus Therning wrote:

...

Are there any drawbacks to using the Apache license for Haskell packages?

I don't think so. It looks to be almost identical to using BSD3, which is already quite popular for haskellers.

This seems like a good write up of the apache license: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml

Jason

Here is a more detailed analysis: http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/42 -- Roman I. Cheplyaka :: http://ro-che.info/ Don't worry what people think, they don't do it very often.