Re: I can't believe..
> Dude, I can't believe that this is the
> best you could do....
I can't believe they have five listings on freshmeat under every concievable open source license, only to go to their site to find out there isn't even a free download.
Re: The license.
> The Aptilis license has much fewer
> restrictions than the GPL - especially
> if s.o. wants to combine Aptilis with
> other projects that are using stricter
> The condition you mentioned does only
> mean that if a feature is included into
> Aptilis, the original author has to
> agree with that. If he doesn't, this
> programme variant simply needs a
> different name and the annotation "based
> on Aptilis technology" somewhere in the
> This measure is necessary to prevent
> Aptilis ("the original") getting bloated
> with functions with arguable benefit.
That makes sense.
It's the "based on Aptilis technology" part that I have trouble with. And that's really the only unusual thing about the Aptilis license.
What's wrong with simply including Aptilis as a source in the credits sheet of a project that uses aptilis code? Coming out and boldly stating "This product is BASED on Aptilis" is a little much, not to mention that it may not be accurate. If I were re-packaging Aptilis with one or two things that I came up with, it would be one thing.
But if I used say... your XML parser (a fine piece of work by the way) or some other part on a much larger product, I don't necessarily think it's fair to state the whole thing is "based" on Aptilis. "This part of project dirived from Aptilis..." might make more sense.
Just an opinion.
There are a lot of them on this site. :)