Matthias Melcher wrote:
> On 04.01.2011, at 19:57, Greg Ercolano wrote:
>> While thinking about this, it occurs to me that example programs
>> should maybe be licensed differently from the rest of FLTK, due
>> to how their source code can (and should) be able to be used to
>> begin a potentially commercial work, without concern for the
>> GPL/LGPL requirements.
>
>
> +1
> Here is a list of public licenses:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
"WTFPL", LOL. It's even 'approved' by the FSF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_What_The_Fuck_You_Want_To_Public_License
If only it had a "Don't blame me for anything" clause :P
In my mind we'd want something like:
1) You can use it for anything
2) Copyright-free/no one to blame
3) No warranty, no liability (vis a vis BSD)
Citing copyright seems silly for an example; examples should be able
to be used as if published in a book. Any requirement on language
included in derived works also seems excessive (eg. BSD requirements).
One license seemed to have a nice simple, vague citation requirement
along the lines of "This code is based on work provided by
<organization>".
I wonder if the creative commons licenses offer any good solution.
I think if one uses their stuff, there's a very terse citation one
can put in the work, keeping the example header 'small'.
> "New BSD" (4-clause BSD)? The user would still have to give
> credit and could not false advertise.
I like their warranty/liability language, but their requirements
for including their header in derived works seems maybe incompatible
for examples.. not sure.
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
