License change for Flow - the poll

So we want to change to MIT License for all Flow Framework Core Components. The TYPO3 Association looked into it together with OSI and they suggest Apache License due to better protection against patent infringement lawsuits. I guess we just have to vote for it, there are enough examples of MIT projects that seem to get by even with the theoretical risk.

For reference both licenses are linked in the poll, the site also has a nice overview with highlevel infos about the licenses.

Check it out and vote. It should be an easy decision and I would like to be able to answer the TYPO3 Association soonish, therefore I would like to close the poll on Thursday!

0 voters

Hey everybody,

I think is quite interesting :smile:

All the best,

Hey Christian,

thanks for taking the step to get results here. I have the feeling not everybody is on the same track about what these licenses mean / how the impact would be for the project. So for example we as a team should decide on the requirements (e.g. patents release) rather on the license itself.

I don’t see any disadvantage using Apache License other than being incompatible with GPL < 3.0 for now. The advantage is the more modern, explicit definition and more “protection” against software patents. So MIT being hip is not a thing why I’d vote for that.

I agree - I voted for MIT but frankly I don’t really know all the implications and I’d rather delegate my vote to someone with more profound knowledge. Or at least discuss the consequences first

Okay, so before we just have a random voting it would be nice if someone with more knowledge in that domain could write down a few objective facts. From reading different sources I can’t see any problem of choosing Apache License, but it’s still a confusing matter for me.

Nice and short thread from Quora:

So i’m more in favor of Apache regarding the product name clarification … About the patent “protection” i’m not a lawyer so no clue if it’s really useful, but the Apache foundation is clever :wink:

Yes, see for example. It could protect us from someone (who can license a patent) doing harm with contributions that cause patent infringements. With MIT it’s more or less “I don’t care”.

Quite interesting post. I doubt we will find much more knowledge, that’s why I put this up. The assocation wants a decision from us, actually we took one back at inspiring but I thought it makes sense to include the advice to use Apache License and think about it again. Still anyone should make up their midn about this.

One pratical issue I have with the Apache license:

Notably, if you change any Apache-licensed code, you must state so.

How does that work in practice? Back to long lists of names of people in file header docblocks?

Is it in general possible to change from LGPL by so many contributors?
What exactly says T3A_CLA about that?

That’s already clear and decided. Via CLA it is possible and according to the vote cast by the members of the T3A it seems the Assoc will change the license for us based on the CLA and then drop the CLA afterwards.