Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Music Your Rights Online

FSF On How To Choose a License 210

Posted by timothy
from the have-it-suit-your-endeavor dept.
ciaran_o_riordan writes "FSF have put together their license recommendations, beyond just their own licenses, for software, documentation, and other works: 'People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their project. We've written about this publicly before, but the information has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. The recommendations below are focused on licensing a work that you create — whether that's a modification of an existing work, or a new original work.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FSF On How To Choose a License

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    "Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."

    I find this advice very, very bad. This is where FSF's mentality goes so very wrong, and where they really don't seem to stand for freedom in any sense at all. Remember: freedom is a two-way concept, not a one-way concept as the FSF gladly would want it to be. "Of course we're all about open and free licenses, as long as you choose one of ours."

    • by Qubit (100461) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:29AM (#36261200) Homepage Journal

      "Please don't use it for software ..., since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."

      A little birdie dumped a codebase on my head recently and one of the many bugfixes I had to do before I could even legally distribute the thing was to rip out some CC-BY-SA code and replace it with something GPL-compatible.

      I have no doubt in my mind that whoever chose the CC license for that code wasn't thinking. Or at least not that much. They wanted to open the code? Great. They wanted to copyleft it? Marvelous as well. A copyleft license like the GPL probably would have been fine for them. That's why we need more simplistic documents like the one that the FSF created.

      I do have some concerns about the GFDL and the CC licenses for documentation. On the one hand I feel that CC-BY-SA doesn't have some of the legacy non-free baggage mechanisms that you can find in the GFDL. On the other hand I have personally run into problems where documentation for projects includes non-trivial code examples, and the Benton Fraser in me has dutifully tried to get specific permission or dual-licensing on the code examples so that I can use them in a program.

      I hope that, just as there has been work to make the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 licenses compatible, we'll see future work to make some of the CC licenses more compatible with permissive and/or copyleft code licenses. Remember that the FSF endorsed that relicensing escape-clause for Wikipedia and some other sites a little while ago, so it seems plausible that there might be some hope for reconciliation and cooperation in the future. At least we can all hope.

      • by ais523 (1172701) <ais523(524\)(525)x)@bham.ac.uk> on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:10AM (#36261384)
        Even Creative Commons suggest that their licenses aren't used for code [creativecommons.org]; they simply aren't designed to apply to it well, and Creative Commons don't suggest that you use licenses for situations they'd be inappropriate for. (On the other hand, you can meaningfully GPL an image, but only if the image has some sort of equivalent to source code, which would rather depend on how the image was created; this may be a bad idea for other reasons, though.)
      • Why don't you simply use both licenses?

        I.e. the documentation is CC-BY-SA as a whole, however code examples fall under the GPLv3 license and that license applies to any use of them within actual software products.
        This still allows the documentation to be used verbatim, rewritten, reformatted, translated, etc. etc., including the code examples, under CC-BY-SA, while protecting the use of the code under GPLv3's terms.

        Mind you, I'm not sure how code examples in documentation could really fall under GPLv3. Say

  • This Is Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:14AM (#36260852)

    Notice how they never mentioned once the BSD license, arguably the most free license there is in the world.

    The whole premise of this exercise is ridiculous.

    • by kyz (225372) on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:18AM (#36260882) Homepage

      Why would they?

      If you want "true freedom", put your software in the public domain.

      If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.

      • If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.

        Except for it's incompatibility with GPLv2 which is still far more prevelant in use than GPLv3 especially with legacy code?

        • by Dwonis (52652) *
          Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true. Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.
          • Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true.

            Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.

            Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.

            Yes, it could be but if it isn't Apache 2.0 isn't going to be compatible. And I doubt seriously that most projects are going to upgrade to GPLv3 for an asinine reason like accepting someone's contribution using the APL as opposed to just having the contributor use the GPLv2 which makes things far easier. Secondly, my statement had nothing to do with saying stuff is GPLv2 only.

            • Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.

              Other than Linux and BusyBox, can you name some well-known examples? And that can easily be solved with an Apache 2/GPLv2 dual license.

      • by Chemisor (97276) on Friday May 27, 2011 @09:20AM (#36261926)

        Here in the US it is not out of the question to be sued for your public domain program. The BSD license has appropriate disclaimers of liability that protect the developer from many kinds of lawsuits. Because a lawsuit is likely to bankrupt you whether you are guilty or not, this is an important consideration.

    • by maxwell demon (590494) on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:39AM (#36260976) Journal

      What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?

      But it is not ridiculous anyway. It details what they think about how software should be licensed in order to further their goals.
      Now your goals may be different to their goals, so the advice doesn't fit your goals. So what? You may not share the goals, but the article isn't about the goals, but how to reach them. It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.

      Of course you can argue whether their goals are right. But that's a different topic, unrelated to the question how to reach them.

      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:11AM (#36261136) Journal

        What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?

        Simplicity. OpenBSD rejects Apache 2.0 licensed code from the base system, because the license is so complex that you can't expect developers without legal training to understand it. I've read the Apache 2.0 license a few times, and I'm still not sure I could answer with 100% certainty what I can and can't do with the code.

        Perhaps more importantly, the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code. This means that you can not mix code under these two licenses in the same codebase. To give a concrete example of when this has been a problem for me, I wanted to index PDFs using code derived from Poppler (derived from xpdf, GPLv2) and Apache Lucene (Apache 2) - this was not possible without jumping through hoops, such as separating the code into two independent programs that could be used together. If either piece of code had been BSDL, then this would have been much easier.

        The interaction between the GPL and APSL code here made it harder for me to write Free Software. In the end, I just bumped that project down my to-do list and hacked on BSDL stuff instead.

        It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.

        TFA purports to be advice. Advice should be telling people how to reach their goals, not yours. If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.

        • by joib (70841)

          If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.

          So the FSF should not put up a web page explaining which licenses they recommend and why, because someone on the Internet might disagree? Seriously?

          • by samkass (174571)

            So the FSF should not put up a web page explaining which licenses they recommend and why, because someone on the Internet might disagree? Seriously?

            No, they should title it something other than "How to choose a license for your own work." Perhaps "What license the FSF thinks you should choose for your work."

            • Are there people going to the FSF web site for advice on choosing a software license, who would expect to receive the opinion of than the FSF's?

            • Well, and you should have said in that post "I, samkass, think they should title it something other (...)" instead of just saying "they should (...)". People might get confused!

        • by djmurdoch (306849) on Friday May 27, 2011 @08:13AM (#36261402)

          the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code.

          I think they see that as a feature, not a bug. The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).

          • The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).

            Good luck with that if one contributor to your GPLv2-only project disagrees with the changes in the GPLv3 or simply has since become uncontactable.

      • What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?

        Compatibility with the GPLv2 which still makes up the vast majority of FOSS code especially things like the Linux kernel.

    • If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.

      FSF's doc says this.

      I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:

      http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License [swpat.org]

      • Yes, and the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 because of a desire to push people to move to GPLv3 since Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Most people don't find picking a license that is incompatible with vast amounts of code under the GPLv2 to be a good recommendation.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      The article shouldn't be titled "FSF On How To Choose a License" but rather "FSF On How To Choose the GPL License".

    • The FSF points out that the use of the (original) BSD license is not advisable [gnu.org] because of the existence of two version of it: the original with the advertising clause, and the modified without it. Because the modified version is equivalent to the MIT (or X11) license, you should use the MIT license instead to avoid confusion.

    • by T.E.D. (34228)

      They don't mention BSD for a fairly simple reason: BSD licenses weren't designed to interact well with GPL licenses, and thus tend not to. If you are liable to end up needing software with different licenses to interact, and some of it is using a FSF license (as is likely if you are going to the FSF for advice in the first place), then using a BSDish license is liable to complicate things.

      They have another page which gets into details of compatibily of various licenses [gnu.org].

      If you aren't at all interested in

    • by Thnurg (457568)

      What makes for a free society? One where each of us is free to murder and imprison each other, or one where the only restriction on your personal freedom is that you may not restrict the freedom of others?
      I prefer the latter social paradigm.
      That's why I prefer GPL.

  • No BSD (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gclef (96311)

    I guess it's predictable that the FSF wouldn't be in favor of BSD-style licenses, but if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license. BSD is not mentioned anywhere in their guide...which is a shame. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.

    • by Ailure (853833)

      "The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do."

      They don't spell it out, but they do imply that there is cases where BSD-style licenses is valid.

    • True, I think that after the GPL, BSD is the most commonly known one.
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      Yes, I was just about to make my own post about how this is clearly biased in favor of FSF licenses.

      BSD is one of the more popular open source licenses out there yet the FSF consistently either pretends it doesn't exist or tells people the GPL is better.

    • Re:No BSD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Qubit (100461) on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:58AM (#36261066) Homepage Journal

      if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license....Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.

      I mean look at it this way: This is the FSF's cheat-sheet decision tree for people to choose a Free Software license. You could easily compare this document with that page that Creative Commons has to help people choose a Free Culture license.

      Now I don't have (read: I'm too lazy to go look up the url right now) the CC page memorized, but last I remembered they only put a few of their CC licenses on there. There wasn't any CC0 listed, and I don't remember the CC-GPL or the Remix license (not sure if that latter license is even being promoted by them anymore).

      If the FSF's target is people who don't geek out on the particular nuances of "distribute" vs "convey" in a FOSS license, then they aren't going to give someone a complete primer on all licenses. Remember that this document is designed as a tool for choosing a license, not working with existing licenses. Sure, if I had to educate a bunch of software developers about FOSS licenses I would probably start with the GPL, then move to BSD (3-clause, natch), MIT, Apache, and maybe sprinkle in some cautionary tales about weak or incompatible licenses. But that ain't the game here.

      It's obvious why the FSF chose the Apache 2.0 license as their default permissive license

      1. It's well written by Real Laywers
      2. It offers some patent protection
      3. It's GPLv3-compatible

      Sure, the new BSD and MIT licenses are shorter, but they don't offer developers and end-users the same kinds of structured protections that are available in the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0. And that's what the FSF is designed to promote.

    • by T.E.D. (34228)
      This isn't just a general list of licenses. They already have that here [gnu.org] (where in fact several different flavors of BSD are mentioned). This is their reccomended list of licenses to use for any given goal, and thus will only list one license for each need.
  • Five FSF/GPL licenses, one that elsewhere they state categorically not to use, and the Apache license.
    • by LizardKing (5245)
      From TFA: "One case where using a different license can be justified is when you make major changes to a work under a non-copyleft license. If the version you've created is considerably more useful than the original, then it's worth copylefting your work" Trouble with this, is that there has been a number of cases where the GPL has been slapped onto a BSD licensed file without making clear that there is only a small portion of that code that requires adherence to Stallmans creed. Just to be clear, using B
      • by no known priors (1948918) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:55AM (#36261304)

        "Just to be clear, using BSD licensed code in a GPL'ed work is fine - re-licensing the whole file under a more restrictive license is not."
        Actually, you're wrong. The BSD license allows anyone to come along and relicense the entire file/program or whatever, under any other license, so long as the conditions of the BSD license are followed. Which mainly come down to attribution.
        The same 'freedom" which allows a propitiatory software developer (such as Microsoft) to take BSD licensed stuff and then say that others are not allowed to redistribute without their permission, is the same "freedom" which allows GPL advocates to take the same code and relicense under the GPL. Of course, if the attribution is done correctly there is nothing to stop you from going to the original source of the program and doing what you like.

        Oh wait, relicensing BSD stuff is only OK when you can't see the source code for the end result, not when you can see the source code, but can't use it because of that nasty GPL virus! Oh the horror!

  • Well, finally there is a concise word someone whom we can trust more than we can trust others in the field, and they took their time to clarify information and to teach public. Their contribution is enormous and one can always learn from them, no matter how strong one's own expertise is. I listened to rms last year in Sarajevo, he is certainly authoritative in that field and also promotes very same goals that were my own reasons to get involved with IT in the first place. I, for one, would always back Mr.
  • by GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) on Friday May 27, 2011 @06:31AM (#36260944)
    In Debian, if you release some documentation using the FDL, and if don't specify that it has no back-cover or invariant part, we'll consider it non-free (eg: it wont go in Debian main, wont be allowed to be put on the CDs, etc.). Yet, the FSF doesn't recognize how bad this license is, and continues to push for this broken one. This is really pure stupidity. People are going to release documentation under this license, thinking that it will render the documentation free, when in fact, it's going to do the exact opposite thing. Why can't the FSF learn and correct this huge mistake? I don't get it...
    • by MikeyO (99577) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:41AM (#36261242) Homepage

      Why can't the FSF learn and correct this huge mistake?

      The people from the FSF who I have talked to about this issue took the (suprising to me) stance that they don't consider documentation to be software, and don't believe that documentation should necessarily be free.

      • by jopsen (885607)
        Well, you can write a blogpost improving the documentation without creating a derivative work. So maybe documentation doesn't need to be free (as in freedom).
        that said, most projects probably want its documentation to be free.
        • by Tim C (15259)

          You can write a blogpost or whatever re-documenting the software, but if the original documentation isn't Free then you can't build on and improve it, just like you can't improve/modify software that isn't Free.

          I really am surprised that the FSF appears to be taking this stance.

  • We're a developer group that is now writing a server library. We plan to use it for commercial projects by putting all the code into the library and creating a thin proprietary wrapper to keep clients happy.

    It's a strategic move to use the LGPL, as if we used GPL then we'd have to sell proprietary licenses. Proprietary people would choose to either:

    • Re-implement their own closed-source version of the software.
    • Buy a proprietary license from us and then not make the changes public.

    This way (by using LGPL) we

    • by glwtta (532858)
      The problem now comes with the fact that our library can be used for web services. People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.

      How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
      • by walshy007 (906710)

        How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.

        Then put your work in the public domain. After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.

        The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users. In doing so they restrict the freedom of distributors. You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.

        • After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.

          "This sense" refers to "People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.". BSD does not restrict freedom in this sense. The only restrictions are those 2,3 or 4 clauses listed on the license. The GPL tells you want you can do, the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).

          You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.

          • Yeah, but the BSD licenses are not free 'cause they require you to attribute the original author/s and copy that long text all around the place. If you want real freedom you use the Do What the Fuck you Want License [wikipedia.org].

            To quote:

            DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
            Version 2, December 2004

            Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar

            Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbat

          • by PhilHibbs (4537)

            You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.

            You are defining freedom as anarchy. Anarchy does not ensure freedom.

        • by glwtta (532858)
          You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.

          Ok, so you didn't read the original post or the portion of it I quoted?

          There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.
          • There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.

            Say a work of authorship ("the software") implements a service. If the service copies parts of the software into its output, use is distribution. Examples from a web service include any images, HTML templates, or JavaScript programs included in a page. The AGPL is intended for programs that are organized as a quine [wikipedia.org], where part of the service includes downloading the software as source code. The AGPL uses the exclusive right to prepare derivative works so that any copy in your possession must maintain the qu

        • The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users.

          Actually that is not totally correct. GPL and LGPL protects the copyright holder by forcing users, who make changes and redistribute the derivative work, to make the changes available to the original copyright holder and public at large. The side effect is that the forced disclosure of source code required by the GPL and LGPL benefits more people since it allows for forks and continuation of development even if the copyright holder no longer support

      • by PhilHibbs (4537)

        You can use GPL or LGPL software in any way that you want, and the user's rights are protected by the licence. The software is also protected from being made proprietary, so that users will always be free from the danger of a proprietary variant supplanting the original via "embrace, extend, extinguish". Freedom does not mean anarchy, anarchy does not provide freedom.

        • by glwtta (532858)
          Um, I understand all this.

          The OP was talking about forcing users to publish internal (ie not re-distributed) changes if they offer a web service that uses the software.

          Does no one even read the posts they are replying to anymore?
  • I often find myself wondering what license the FSF would approve, it's not as if they've got some kind of bias or anything. How about tomorrow we interview Theo and ask which license he recommends? I'm sure it will all be very surprising.
  • by no known priors (1948918) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:08AM (#36261116)

    There are a few reasons why I don't like Creative Commons, one of which is that they encourage people not to read the actual license text (just to read the "human readable summary"). But have a look at some of the restrictions one day. A quotes from Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported [creativecommons.org]:

    Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.

    Bet you didn't know that was in there (no actual bet intended).
    Moreover, most of the CC licenses hardly the easiest of licenses to read, too full of legalese. And which license? There are umpteen different ones, depending on which jurisdiction you want to cover. Not to mention the various versions (Flickr only let's you use version 2.0 licenses, rather than the latest 3.0 versions). Too much choice, leads to confusion.

    Personally, what I want is a simple, short, easy to understand, weak copyleft (like Lesser GPL) for non-software. Does anyone know of a license like that?

    • What so you think that a licence that people pick so that anyone can use it but they get credit, should allow people to use it to poke fun at them and be derogatory to them ...?

      "... look he wrote this awful stuff, he must have, it has his name on it on a AASA licence"

    • by T.E.D. (34228)

      IMHO, CC0 is the only one I care for. It is probably the best license to use if you don't want the "restrictions" of the GPL to apply to the work. It essentially makes the work Public Domain.

      If you'd like restrictions on reuse of your work, that's where the GPL comes in. So the other CC's aren't of much interest to me, unless I need to use someone else's work that used it.

  • by Sasayaki (1096761) on Friday May 27, 2011 @07:40AM (#36261232)

    No documentation? Huh. Well, what about fiction?

    I want to publish both a novel and an iPhone RPG under a fan-fiction friendly license. Essentially what I want is to sell stories and games on the App Store, but allow my readers/players to, legally and safely, create Creative Commons, Share Alike, Non-Commercial original stories using the characters and settings I've created.

    Note, original. I would rather not see the whole book reproduced on the web, but I would love to see, say, the whole story retold and rewritten from another character's perspective. Or for a prequel, or a side story, or a 'dark and gritty re-imagining', etc.

    The intention here is to allow other writers to create original stories using the characters I've created (AKA fan fiction), and to publish such as they wish, safe from legal threats. Yes, safe even from ME, so if I go mad with wealth/power/poverty and decide to sue everyone, those who have created fan fiction using my stories can tell me to suck it and die.

    Ideally, if possible, I would also like a canonization clause. If someone writes fan fiction that I quite like, with their approval, I may integrate elements of their story into a sequel, side story, etc. This requires the author's express, written permission and they are more than entitled to say "no thanks".

    Is there any licencing model that covers that?

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Why don't you just include a promise not to sue, specifically for the use of the characters and places, names and likenesses, within the work itself?

      • by tepples (727027)
        I agree with no known priors [slashdot.org] that paying a lawyer to write such a promise not to sue would be a good idea.
        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          I agree, but for those people who don't have one and/or can't afford one (since we have established that you can do software development for at least some platforms cheaply enough for this to be relevant) it seems like at least trying to do the right thing ought to win you some points. I don't let not being able to afford legal counsel stop me from getting involved in something. I guess that's part of the joy of not having dependents.

    • by SheeEttin (899897)
      None that I can think of off the top of my head.
      What I would do is label it CC-BY-NC-ND, then make it explicit you make an exemption for using your characters or whatever.
      Or, you could go the usual route, and say "copyright 2011 Sasayaki, all rights reserved", and then just ignore/support people when they're all right with you.

      (Of course, if you really expect your project to go anywhere, you'd be best off with a real lawyer.
  • There was a similar article from Bruce Perens a few years back: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/1633200/How-Many-Open-Source-Licenses-Do-You-Need [slashdot.org]

    He describes his reasons differently, but arrives at the same conclusions. For those of you worried about the missing option of the BSD license, he does talk about this a little bit. But only a little bit -- it's quite a short article. Worth a read for an alternate take of the same point of view.

  • I must be psychic. I knew exactly which licenses they'd recommend before even reading the article, right up to suggesting the Apache 2.0 license if you couldn't use one of the 3 GPLv3 licenses.

    Seriously, the FSF and GNU are the same (heck, all the email links on the FSF page footer are gnu.org email addresses), so of course they're going to suggest their own licenses. Some real news would be advice on choosing a license from some unbiased source.

    • Assuming your goal is to support free software in general and not say deliberately choose incompatible licenses for strategic reasons like sun did with opensolaris then IMO there are two main descisions to be made.

      1: which matters more to you, the patent protection clauses in newer licenses or the wider compatibility of older licenses.
      2: do you want "no copyleft", "library copyleft", or "full copyleft"

      Based on the answer to those questions chose between Apache2+, LGPL3+, GPL3+, BSD/MIT, LGPL2+ or GPL2+.

      I'd

  • Having written quite a few assundry Free Software projects myself, I actually came up with my own list through trial-and-error. It goes like this:

    Basicaly, there are three levels of needs:

    1. I want the entire program to keep my license when modified
    2. I want my facility to keep my license when modified and distributed, but I don't want to restrict programs that use my facility to any particular license
    3. I don't want any restrictions on the license that modified copies of my code have to use

    For 1: use the full o

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...