The Apache license is long and needlessly complex

[apotheon]

@"Krste

The problem with dual license is that (obviously) not all contributors would want to contribute under both licenses, so how do we manage redistribution of their contributions without fragmenting the code base?

My guess would be that your choices are as follows:

1. Use two licenses (dual-license). Gain those who like one license and are willing to dual-license, and those who like the other license and are willing to dual-license. Possibly lose those who refuse to license under one or the other, though I have no real idea why that would happen with AL2 and MIT License, except maybe in the very fringe-y case of people who don’t want to deal with AL2 terms (but would be okay with the MIT License or some flavor of copyfree BSD License).

2. Only use one license. Lose everyone who would only contribute under the other license, and everyone who would contribute under dual-license terms but prefer the other license, and those who want their code to be compatible with GPLv2, while you gain only those who prefer the license you kept. I’m not sure this is an improvement, even if there are more people who refuse to dual-license than seems likely (a very small if).

@Krste

If you’re just using the code, as opposed to contributing, there is really no overhead versus BSD.

I don’t recall saying there was more overhead, but there is certainly more legal prohibition that would prevent other projects from using it. License incompatibility is a real problem.

@"Krste

I think you’re overestimating both the adminstrative overhead of complying (as others have noted) and the likelihood someone will sue you for a benign fork of the code if you don’t, and are also underestimating the nervousness that many have in the hardware space about using code without even the admittedly minimal protection of a contributor patent grant.

1. You can think I’m overestimating the overhead all you want, but the legal terms are right there, in the license. Read them.

2. I don’t overestimate the likelihood of getting sued. I think it’s very small, if your errors in compliance are innocent errors. It’s probably as small as the likelihood I’d get run over by a car walking across the street in front of my home without looking both ways first – but I still look both ways before crossing, and find it foolhardy to not do so.

3. I know there’s a lot of “nervousness” in hardware fields related to patents. Dual-licensing does nothing to make that any worse, relative to using AL2 alone.

@"Krste

Our belief is that in the open-hardware space, AL2 will lead to our code base being more widely used and contributed to than with other license regimes.

Sure, that’s not an entirely unreasonable estimate of likelihoods, at least until the problems of license incompatibilities become a bigger concern (and that concern appears to be growing steadily, if slowly, over time). What boggles my mind is the resistance to broadening the appeal by dual-licensing.