Dear Even, many thanks for your prompt reply and the link. I found them both very helpful!
Cheers, anssi On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Even Rouault <[email protected]> wrote: > Selon anssi <[email protected]>: > >> Dear Joaquim, >> >> thanks for pointing that out. >> >> There´s absolutely no intention to abuse any of the great work of the >> gdal/ogr developers. Rather the opposite. >> >> The license is being discussed as we speak and we're considering >> various options. What would you suggest? Should it be MIT or would , >> for example, Modified BSD License do? > > Ansi, > > You are completely free of choosing the licence for your software. The X/MIT > licence of GDAL/OGR has no consequence on the choice of the licence of other > software using GDAL/OGR. You could even release your software under a > proprietary licence if you wish (but, as a OSGeo project, we clearly advocate > for the use and development of free and Open Source software !). It is up to > you > to decide which rights and obligations you want to offer/impose to your users. > > Licencing has been discussed in the past and you can for example have a look > at > this post > http://dmorissette.blogspot.fr/2011/07/obligations-related-to-open-source.html > for a quick summary of my understanding of some common FOSS licences. > > Best regards, > > Even > _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
