> I just ask that you choose a license that preserves the freedom
> of the source code, so that everyone may use it and contribute to it.
Rhetorically speaking, MIT-style licences could be read as not preserving
the source's freedoms as much as licences with copyleft (such as the
GPLs). (Note the distinction of "source's freedoms" and "recipients'
freedoms" in this paragraph of my reply and the next. This is important.)
> Avoid licenses that limit the freedom of users, including licenses
> that look free but exclude certain classes of users ("May not be used
> by the military" or "For non-commercial use only".)
Or "for legal use only" or "for ethical use only" etc. (Seen 'em all.)
Technically, the GPL does restrict an individual user's freedoms as well,
though their disadvantage there is of course only to insure the freedoms
of (potential) downstream recipients.
> However, these different
> licenses does make it a bit difficult to share code between projects,
> if they have different licenses.
Specifically, if (incompatible) copylefts are involved.
> That's another reason why I prefer to
> contribute only to programs under the GNU GPL, so I can easily re-use
> code from one project to help out another.
Ah, but you could do so if you primarily contributed to programs under
MIT-style licences as well. And, specifically, the MIT-style licences
allow anyone to relicense the content under the GPL (ie adding copyleft),
but it naturally doesn't work the other way around.
> As far as the version of the GNU GPL, I happen to prefer version 2 for
> DOS programs because I think version 2 applies well to
> statically-linked programs (typical in DOS.)
The most licence-compatible option (if you have already decided to employ
the GPL) is to chose wording (such as the FSF's default suggestion) which
allows GPLv2+; if you merely specify "GPLv2" but do not explicitly state
the option to change to a newer one, then this is the same as explicitly
specifying "GPL v2-only" (like the licence of current Linux releases) -
that is, that source's copyleft is then incompatible with the copyleft of
source released under GPLv3(+).
Not to imply you didn't know all of those details. I merely felt that your
descriptions here could use some more context. After all, while it's all
perfectly simple, choosing a licence should occur after one has learned of
the potential consequences of such a choice.
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
Freedos-user mailing list