On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 3 September 2015 at 18:30, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > | I'm currently too swamped to contribute, but if someone is interested, this > | blog post by Jake Vanderplas is a great resource for information about > | scientific software licensing: > | > | http://www.astrobetter.com/blog/2014/03/10/ > | the-whys-and-hows-of-licensing-scientific-code/ > > I strongly agrew with points 1 and 2 of the summary, but I object to point 3: > > Always use a permissive, BSD-style license. A permissive license such as > new > BSD or MIT is preferable to a copyleft license such as GPL or LGPL. > > I prefer GPL (as do a lot of other people, here or otherwise) and respect the > choice other people make. But I dislike the overtones implying a superiority > of BSD/MIT. There is choice here, and reasonable people may come to > different conclusions. Here is another more recent post that makes this > point more eloquently than I could now > > http://dustycloud.org/blog/why-i-am-pro-gpl/ > > Dirk
Thanks for the link -- but -100000000 on having this conversation on this mailing list :). (My blog post: ivory.idyll.org/blog/2015-on-licensing-in-bioinformatics.html, where discussion got crazy; and this is a good read that may have me changing my mind: zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6.) thanks, --titus -- C. Titus Brown, [email protected] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
