I certainly like the FreeBSD license. Can't get much more open than that. No one is forced to give back their modifications under any circumstances which makes a whole lot of sense.
The company I work for takes advantage of a lot of open source software and although it doesn't make any business sense to give back all of our changes to the open source world we do give back a lot of bug fixes and minor enhancements. We won't even look at GPL software. -Bob On 8/5/05 1:22 PM, "Andreas Aardal Hanssen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, all. > > Binc IMAP 1.2 is, as we all know, licensed under the GPLv2. In short, the > GPL means that the source is open, but anyone can change it and keep their > changes to themselves as long as they don't distribute Binc IMAP in binary > form; if they do distribute it, then anyone who can get hold of that > binary can claim the modified source. The goal of this license is to > encourage everyone to open their modified source to everyone. > > I'm looking for an appropriate license for Binc IMAP in the future. If > anyone has any suggestions, feel free to speak up. What's important for > Binc IMAP is: > > 1) It's open source, for all that means. > 2) I want to encourage everyone to send their patches back to the > community, so that others in the same position as you can make use of > your adaptations. > 3) I want the business world to feel good about using and modifying Binc > IMAP. > 4) I don't want the existing Binc IMAP community (yeah, you!) to feel that > any new license is of hindrance for them to make use of Binc IMAP 1.4. > > GPL is a little strict on adding stuff (backends, extensions). Maybe LGPL > is an alternative? > > Andy :-) > > PS: The license for Binc IMAP 1.2 will not change. > > -- > Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg > Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something > http://www.bincimap.org/ | than to do it poorly." >
