Further to this, for the SharedSDS project licensing is now settled on GNU
GPL v3 for the bulk of the software. API code will be GNU LGPL v3
Mike
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 10:43:58 AM UTC+10, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
>
> Cross posting again to thank everyone for responding ...
>
> I'm going with LGPL.
>
> Oliver suggested I consider Mozilla Public License and part of a
> stackexchange conversation goes [1] ...
>
> > The major difference is how MPL / LGPL licensed code must be linked
> > into the project. MPL source code files can be directly copied into a
> > (possibly) proprietary software project (static linking), while LGPL
> > licensed code must be dynamically linked (loosely linked to the
> > possibly proprietary software project, so that end-users can switch
> > out the licensed software library for another version of the licensed
> > software library).
>
> ... but in the context of Python running in a server (IANAL) I can't see
> "linking" being applicable to the point where it would prevent the real
> objective of ensuring my source (modified or not) is available for the
> end user of the whole work. Running on someone else's server makes it
> moot and on the end-user's server it is fait accompli.
>
> Russ suggested staying within the big five and that was why I was
> leaning towards LGPL anyway. My thought was about who might be
> interested in helping if the license is breached. MSF or FSF? I assume
> FSF because that is their entire mission.
>
> In truth I was originally going for GPLv3 until I realised it would
> prevent some of my intended users from interfacing their software with
> mine.
>
> Again - thanks to all
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike
>
> [1]
>
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/221365/mozilla-public-license-mpl-2-0-vs-lesser-gnu-general-public-license-lgpl-3-0
>
>
> On 11/08/2014 10:34 AM, Mike Dewhirst wrote:
> > Apologies for cross-posting
> >
> > I'm getting near to open sourcing a Django project and have to choose
> > an appropriate license. Can anyone help me choose?
> >
> > I have settled on the following requirements ...
> >
> > 1. Project source must be freely available for end users to view and
> > download and modify and further distribute to others
> >
> > 2. But if user modified source is distributed the modified source
> > must be freely available for others to view and download and modify
> > and be subject to the identical license as the project source
> >
> > 3. However, if the user modified source is kept in-house and not
> > further distributed the changed source may be kept private or offered
> > back to the project as a patch at the whim of that user.
> >
> > 4. Project (and user modified) source may be combined with
> > proprietary software but the project (or user mofified) source
> > component remains subject to the same license. It cannot be
> > distributed as a combined whole under any other license than the
> > project license.
> >
> > 5. But it can be distributed as a combined whole with proprietary
> > software provided the project (or user modified) source component is
> > freely available for end users to view and download and further
> > distribute to others under the project license even if the
> > proprietary component is not.
> >
> > BTW, Django doesn't require that my project use the Django license
> > and of course I won't be distributing Django.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards the LGPL but would appreciate feedback from
> > anyone with contrary views.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Mike _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug
> > mailing list melbourne-pug@python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
melbourne-pug@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
