On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Aidan Gauland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone's probably going to tell me that they got an answer to this from > their first Google search (but I have tried looking for this already), but > here goes anyway...
http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=open%20source%20license%20comparison Seemed to work for me. Even a Slashdot article with the same title :-) > license, the Mozilla licenses(s) -- but what the heck are the nitty gritty > legal differences between them?! They have differences, but I'm not sure that the differences are actually useful. Either you want to "restrict" people's use of the code (the GPL model), or you don't (BSD, Artistic, etc). It seems to me as if many of the extra licenses are essentially additional special restrictions that relate to the project/foundation that wrote it (even the original BSD "advertising" clause was one of those). I tend to choose GPL as a default; but I'd consider BSD if asked, because I don't really care. Remember that if you are the sole owner of the code, you can publish under any license at any time ... but if you start to accept significant contributions, your hands become tied ... -jim
