On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:27:35 PM CET Wols Lists wrote: > On 06/02/2024 13:12, J. Roeleveld wrote: > >> Clearly Oracle likes this state of affairs. Either that, or they are > >> encumbered in some way from just GPLing the ZFS code. Since they on > >> paper own the code for both projects it seems crazy to me that this > >> situation persists. > > > > GPL is not necessarily the best license for releasing code. I've got some > > private projects that I could publish. But before I do that, I'd have to > > decide on a License. I would prefer something other than GPL. > > Okay. What do you want to achieve. Let's just lump licences into two > categories to start with and ask the question "Who do you want to free?"
I want my code to be usable by anyone, but don't want anyone to fork it and start making money off of it without giving me a fair share. > If that sounds weird, it's because both Copyleft and Permissive claim to > be free, but have completely different target audiences. Once you've > answered that question, it'll make choosing a licence so much easier. > > GPL gives freedom to the END USER. It's intended to protect the users of > your program from being held to ransom. That's not how the kernel devs handle the GPL. They use it to remove choice from the end user (me) to use what I want (ZFS). And it's that which I don't like about the GPL. > Permissive gives freedom to the DEVELOPER. It's intended to let other > programmers take advantage of your code and use it. > > Once you've decided what sort of licence you want, it'll be easier to > decide what licence you want. See above -- Joost
