Sivakatirswami- Thursday, November 11, 2010, 7:28:04 PM, you wrote:
> I don't see that CC prevents sale of anything under that license, but > wouldn't the MIT license be more in line with this intent? And it *is* > designed for software. > Any insights on "problems" with MIT? it *is* a copyleft license too, > like the CC license. Or to ask the question another way... why would > you chose CC over MIT? I have no problems with the MIT license. I simply chose the CC license a while back because I like the CC idea. As you've noted, other licenses may well be more appropriate and I may change my licensing in the future. I like clause 2 of the Eiffel license for open source projects: "Permission is hereby also granted to distribute binary programs which depend on this package. If the binary program depends on a modified version of this package, you are encouraged to publicly release the modified version of this package." Note that the zlib license is very direct. It seems to cover everything except the part above about putting modifications back into the open source domain, so I may end up frankensteining this a bit to handle that. http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php I notice that the Zope license says that it's "designated as GPL compatible by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)", whatever that means, but it's also straightforward and to the point. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
