License?

[molecule]

I'd be very interested in using your library in a project. Would it be possible for you to add a license to this library? Also would you be able to do LGPL, or BSD, or something similar? My company may not allow me to use this library if it's Apache 2.0. I am planning on completely open-sourcing my entire project, but I won't be able to do that unless this library uses a license that my company's lawyers are comfortable with.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

[GreyGnome]

The license is already Apache 2.0 as it says at the top of the EnableInterrupt.h file.

What is the objection to Apache 2.0? I think it's quite liberal. That said, I am happy to accommodate as I can't imagine a more liberal license (except for the WTFPL) but I'd like to know what's up before I sign off.

I'm not sure what the LGPL is all about but I think it's even more restrictive than Apache 2.0, in which case I don't think I'd mind but again I'd like to know what's up. Thanks.

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:07 PM, molecule notifications@github.com wrote:

I'd be very interested in using your library in a project. Would it be possible for you to add a license to this library? Also would you be able to do LGPL, or BSD, or something similar? My company may not allow me to use this library if it's Apache 2.0.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23.

-Mike Schwager

[molecule]

Sorry for the delay. I've scheduled a meeting with the company's lawyers this afternoon to discuss the issues. I was also under the impression that the Apache 2.0 license was friendly, so I will let you know what I find out.

[GreyGnome]

I'll close this issue. Send me a message if you need any more assistance.

[molecule]

Hi Mike,

Sorry about the delay. I did speak with the lawyers. Apparently Apache 2.0 could possibly be interpreted as giving license to every patent in the company, and that makes the lawyers nervous. They prefer Clear BSD or MIT licenses. Personally, I understand the value of a license like Apache 2.0, and I can't tell you what I would do. All I can say is: I can't use any library that has Apache 2.0, but I CAN use Clear BSD or MIT licenses. So, feel free to take that into account as you consider changing licenses.

Thanks so much for your time, Molly

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Mike Schwager notifications@github.com wrote:

I'll close this issue. Send me a message if you need any more assistance.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23#issuecomment-144270773 .

[GreyGnome]

Oy vay... Do your lawyers mean to tell me, that after all the years of the Apache license, they think that it can possibly be interpreted in such a way, and that no one else noticed or has expressed any such concern? Do they think that that would be even acceptable to the Open Source community? That's a horrible time bomb. Geez Loueez, ridiculous. If that was possible I would bail from the Apache license straightaway. I actually chose it because it's permissive, yet I hate most software patents and so I like its clause about patents. But the license only and specifically applies to the "Work", where (and I quote) ' "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work...' Since your company's software is not made available under the License, the Grant of Patent License clause does not apply to it.

So I'm not willing to change the license on the library for general distribution.

Now that I've got that off my chest :-), as the sole copyright owner I am willing to license it to your company in terms that they feel more comfortable with, provided that they include a Grant of Patent License substantially similar to the clause contained in the Apache 2.0 license (which would of course be as explicit as necessary to make clear that it applies only to the EnableInterrupt library, and not any of their work that utilizes the library). Your company's rights would continue through future versions of the EnableInterrupt library, so you could use it whatever future Arduino chips come along. Furthermore, you would not need to distribute a copy of our agreement with your product; may main concern is attribution. So I'm thinking the Apache 2.0 license can be used as boilerplate for a modified agreement.

If you wish, why don't we take this conversation offline? Contact me at mschwage @ gmail . com .

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, molecule notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Mike,

Sorry about the delay. I did speak with the lawyers. Apparently Apache 2.0 could possibly be interpreted as giving license to every patent in the company, and that makes the lawyers nervous. They prefer Clear BSD or MIT licenses. Personally, I understand the value of a license like Apache 2.0, and I can't tell you what I would do. All I can say is: I can't use any library that has Apache 2.0, but I CAN use Clear BSD or MIT licenses. So, feel free to take that into account as you consider changing licenses.

Thanks so much for your time, Molly

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Mike Schwager notifications@github.com wrote:

I'll close this issue. Send me a message if you need any more assistance.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23#issuecomment-144270773

.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23#issuecomment-144273308 .

-Mike Schwager

[molecule]

Haha....I don't know what to say. I'm not in a position to argue for or against their interpretation. I'm also not interested in defending their stance, or negotiating a special license. Thanks for the offer.

I found another solution that does not involve your library.

Best of luck, Molly

On Oct 7, 2015, at 10:45 AM, Mike Schwager notifications@github.com wrote:

Oy vay... Do your lawyers mean to tell me, that after all the years of the Apache license, they think that it can possibly be interpreted in such a way, and that no one else noticed or has expressed any such concern? Do they think that that would be even acceptable to the Open Source community? That's a horrible time bomb. Geez Loueez, ridiculous. If that was possible I would bail from the Apache license straightaway. I actually chose it because it's permissive, yet I hate most software patents and so I like its clause about patents. But the license only and specifically applies to the "Work", where (and I quote) ' "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work...' Since your company's software is not made available under the License, the Grant of Patent License clause does not apply to it.

So I'm not willing to change the license on the library for general distribution.

Now that I've got that off my chest :-), as the sole copyright owner I am willing to license it to your company in terms that they feel more comfortable with, provided that they include a Grant of Patent License substantially similar to the clause contained in the Apache 2.0 license (which would of course be as explicit as necessary to make clear that it applies only to the EnableInterrupt library, and not any of their work that utilizes the library). Your company's rights would continue through future versions of the EnableInterrupt library, so you could use it whatever future Arduino chips come along. Furthermore, you would not need to distribute a copy of our agreement with your product; may main concern is attribution. So I'm thinking the Apache 2.0 license can be used as boilerplate for a modified agreement.

If you wish, why don't we take this conversation offline? Contact me at mschwage @ gmail . com .

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM, molecule notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Mike,

Sorry about the delay. I did speak with the lawyers. Apparently Apache 2.0 could possibly be interpreted as giving license to every patent in the company, and that makes the lawyers nervous. They prefer Clear BSD or MIT licenses. Personally, I understand the value of a license like Apache 2.0, and I can't tell you what I would do. All I can say is: I can't use any library that has Apache 2.0, but I CAN use Clear BSD or MIT licenses. So, feel free to take that into account as you consider changing licenses.

Thanks so much for your time, Molly

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Mike Schwager notifications@github.com wrote:

I'll close this issue. Send me a message if you need any more assistance.

― Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23#issuecomment-144270773

.

― Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/GreyGnome/EnableInterrupt/issues/23#issuecomment-144273308 .

-Mike Schwager ― Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.