On Friday, August 5 at 10:22 PM, quoth Andreas Aardal Hanssen:
I'm looking for an appropriate license for Binc IMAP in the future.
This begs the question: "what's wrong with the current license?" I don't feel that there's anything wrong with the current license, so I'd vote for not changing it --- but if there's a concern with it, let's address it.
Why are you considering changing it?
1) It's open source, for all that means.
Cool, so... any from the official list will work: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
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.
Unfortunately, where licences are concerned, there's "requiring" modifications to be made public and there's not requiring. "Encouraging" doesn't really mean much, as far as licenses go.
3) I want the business world to feel good about using and modifying Binc IMAP.
This, I'm guessing, is why you decided to re-evaluate the issue. Why would a business not feel good about using or modifying BincIMAP currently? Are any modifications okay for any purpose, or do you want to require those modifications to be available to the community? May a company sell modified BincIMAP binaries (say, as part of an embedded webmail turnkey-device, for example)?
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.
Same here!
GPL is a little strict on adding stuff (backends, extensions). Maybe LGPL is an alternative?
Specifically, what behavior does the GPL prohibit that you (or anyone else) feels should not be prohibited?
~Kyle --No man survives when freedom fails, The best men rot in filthy jails, And those who cry 'appease, appease' Are hanged by those they tried to please.
-- Hiram Mann
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
