Update on the Open Source License?

[jaxim]

Last year it was written in the FAQs that the MIT license was being considered instead of the CC license that is currently being used for the framework.

http://puremvc.org/content/view/83/188/

"I have come around to consider that perhaps another license would be better. This will most likely be the MIT license, which is simpler. However changing all the files in the project in one sweep will be a job. "

I checked around on the forum but could not see if there has been any updates on this subject. Is the MIT license still under consideration and in the current development roadmap?

[puremvc]

Still under consideration, yes. The biggest hurdle is figuring out just how to update all the 90+ projects. It's a whale of a task.

-=Cliff>

[andyli]

Any update on this topic?

I would like to put pureMVC haXe port on lib.haxe.org which is the official place to put open source lib written for haXe. I think putting pureMVC on it can encourage more usage of the lib, since currently by my own observation, not many ppl is using or even know the haXe port for pureMVC.

However, it has a limitation on licensing. It currently allows only GPL, LGPL, BSD and Public Domain. Can only the license of haXe port be changed to BSD (or MIT, which is compatible with the BSD license and I can simply label it as BSD on lib.haxe.org)?

[puremvc]

Consistency of the licensing across all the projects is the only way to manage the codebase as a whole. And changing all the licenses will be a whale of a task.

Can you talk with the people at haxe.org and see if they can broaden their scope to include CC?

-=Cliff>

[andyli]

Yes I have talked to the haXe devs in the mailing list, but they have the same opinion as me, CC isn't really suitable as a software license and using it for software shouldn't be encouraged in anyway.

About consistency of the licensing, what about changing to dual license? Say users can choose between CC or MIT. In that case individual ports can choose to update their license or stay in the current state if no one has the time to do it soon.

But in anyway this is a task that should be done sooner or later, well, if PureMVC is still being used in the future.

[puremvc]

The problem is finding several weeks of solid open time to go through all the repos and update everything. There are about 100 projects in all. That's a LOT of work. Not only does it mean updating the repos, but also the downloadable archives, and in many cases pretty printed source. Leaving the project in a state of disarray where some code is under one license and some under another is not really an acceptable solution either.

-=Cliff>

[SasaT]

What free software licenses could I use for my PureMVC-based software? I'm guessing GPL, LGPL and the like are out of the picture?

[Tekool]

I agree that a review on the license used for PureMVC would be a good thing. At least we can change all the PureMVC core projects to have an appropriate license.

I'll be able to change and commit all my work (including demos etc...) to the new license when needed.