On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 06:41:58 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
On 22 April 2014 16:29, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce
<digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 22/04/14 07:57, Manu via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:

Yeah, I understand the license options essentially, but it's more than just the license text, there are license cultures that affect the decision, and people are borderline religious about this sort of
I mean, the GPL seems fine to me, but there are many people who see GPL and avoid it like the plague as a matter of superstition or something. I'd prefer to not discourage interest or contribution just
because I wrote "GPL" near my code.
Then people invented LGPL and in my experience, this makes some of them feel okay with it, and others still don't wanna go near it.

What practical reasons are there to avoid GPL if your software is
fundamentally open-source?
Ideally, I'd like something like GPL, with the option that I can grant
someone an exception to the license upon request.

If you want to use some library that is not GPL, or incompatible with GPL. Or the opposite. If someone wants to use your code, but not want to use GPL, but still an open source license. BSD, for example, is much more flexible in
these cases.

But then you lose the incentive to return contribution back to the
original community.
I've worked in companies where we take OSS libraries, modified for our needs, and never offer the modifications back to the community. I've
done it myself, and it's basically wrong.
I am not aware of the license that encourages community contribution,
but also doesn't infect your code like the plague?

That would be the CDDL, which Sun came up with for OpenSolaris, and other file-based licenses like the MPL, which Mozilla came up with for the open-sourcing of Netscape:


The CDDL is like the GPL, in that CDD-licensed files have to stay open source when redistributed, but since it applies on a file-by-file basis, doesn't infect the rest of the codebase. Others can compile your CDD-licensed files with their own files that they license differently, as long as they provide the source for your CDDL files, including any modifications they've made to your files.

All that said, simple licenses, like the BSD or MIT licenses, are probably best, because they work with almost everything else.

Reply via email to