Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nigel Hamilton wrote: > > * a commercially positive IP licence - not something that has an > > agenda (e.g., GPLv3) > > What licence would you recommend? I want it to be really open.
I'd recommend the zlib or MIT/Expat. For what it's worth, I think the GPLv3 is commercially positive (restriction of commercial use is not allowed) but I know there are reasons people don't want to use it. > The only > thing I can think of not wanting is for people to sell it as is, by > itself, for profit. I'd be more than happy for it to be used > commercially and to be a part of a package that is sold for profit. If > that makes sense. No, that makes no sense at all to me, but if you want to require people to add a README.new to it to sell it, then go ahead. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
