I've been doing some thinking about licensing and what I personally really care about.
I realise there are only four things that really matter to me: 1) That my copyright notice be maintained. 2) That any offer to redistribute in binary form is accompanied by an equal offer to redistribute in source form (the code should always be open in the academic sense - open for study, open for verification). 3) That redistribution of the code in binary or source form as part of any closed source packages is prohibited without my explicit written permission. 4) Redistribution with modification is allowed (subject to terms 1-3). (Just to clarify, I'm not hereby relicensing any of my previously written code with the above conditions, I'm merely thinking about finding a license of that kind for my future work.) Does anyone know of a license similar to that? It's more permissive than the GPL as commercial use is permitted as long as I have given explicit permission. It would also get right around the whole v2/v3 and LGPL/GPL debates. The interesting thing is, were I to contribute code to eMPIRe under such a license the overall license would be more permissive than GPL and less permissive than LGPL. This would obviate the need for having two different versions of eMPIRe. Does anyone have any comments on this? Am I missing something important? Bill. On 31 Oct, 19:58, user923005 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps you intend your tools as purely academic exercise or for use > only in altogether open source projects. > > I find the proliferation of GPLv3 code as something tragic, because I > can only use these things as toys and not for work. > > For instance, for this reason I am unable to use the excellent GSL > code in any of my work. > > My favorite license style is Berkeley (e.g. PostgreSQL, ACE), followed > by LGPL. > > I have donated work on many GPL projects, but they have to be strictly > hobby projects for me. > > There is some chance I might use the LGPL subset, but those sort of > things always seem half-hearted and I may need the functionality in > the other parts and so I guess that I will stick with projects with a > license style that is more useful for me. > > Of course, there is room for any sort of license and I have worked on > Public Domain, Berkeley, LGPL, GPL, closed source commercial and other > sorts of projects and see value in all of them. > > I just wanted you to think about the impact for people who would like > to use your tools in a commercial environment. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
