Jim Cheetham wrote:
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 :-)
I was looking for something a little more detailed than that.
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).
This is what I wanted to know. It sounds as if the differences are pretty
insignificant for the most part.
I tend to choose GPL as a default; but I'd consider BSD if asked,
because I don't really care.
Would there be much point to releasing a Ruby program under a BSD-style
license, since you can't close off the source code?
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
