About Licenses

[ndrean]

I see that Bumblebee uses APACHE whilst you use GNU.

I read that:

• MIT: "do what you want with this, just don’t sue me". This means you can even derive a closed commercial product from this.
• APACHE: "do what you want with this, just don’t sue me. You can derive anything but keep the same license and mark the changes."
• GNU: "do what you want with this,don’t sue me and keep it open". If you derive something from this, it has to be open source."

Do you agree on these definitions?

[nelsonic]

GPL doesn't require derivative works to be open source; it's encouraged.
Plenty of commercial products use the Linux Kernel and are not Open Source.
See: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-use-gpl-libraries-in-a-closed-source-project

It's true that MIT and Apache are less restrictive but only from a narrow-minded copyright lawyer's perspective.
Google, Cisco, Oracle and even Microsoft use GPL code in their products. Don't fear GPL.

[ndrean]

Thanks for your input And GREAT link. Will take me time to digest it.