On Nov 16, 6:23 am, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been doing some thinking about licensing and what I personally > really care about. > > I realise there are only four things that really matter to me: > > 1) That my copyright notice be maintained. > 2) That any offer to redistribute in binary form is accompanied by an > equal offer to redistribute in source form (the code should always be > open in the academic sense - open for study, open for verification). > 3) That redistribution of the code in binary or source form as part of > any closed source packages is prohibited without my explicit written > permission. > 4) Redistribution with modification is allowed (subject to terms 1-3). > > (Just to clarify, I'm not hereby relicensing any of my previously > written code with the above conditions, I'm merely thinking about > finding a license of that kind for my future work.) > > Does anyone know of a license similar to that?
It sounds like a cross between Berkeley style licenses and LGPL. Of course, you can write your own license terms in any way that you like. > It's more permissive than the GPL as commercial use is permitted as > long as I have given explicit permission. It would also get right > around the whole v2/v3 and LGPL/GPL debates. > > The interesting thing is, were I to contribute code to eMPIRe under > such a license the overall license would be more permissive than GPL > and less permissive than LGPL. > > This would obviate the need for having two different versions of > eMPIRe. > > Does anyone have any comments on this? Am I missing something > important? There are many products that have multiple license terms. Examples: MySQL has GPL and commercial license. Same for QT. I have seen combined Berkeley license and LGPL on some sourceforge projects (the end-users chooses -- this is to fascilitate use in as many places as possible so that both Berkeley style and LGPL style projects can use the code which might be prohibited otherwise). I suggest that you create a license that has the exact terms you want. It's your project, after all. > Bill. > > On 31 Oct, 19:58, user923005 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps you intend your tools as purely academic exercise or for use > > only in altogether open source projects. > > > I find the proliferation of GPLv3 code as something tragic, because I > > can only use these things as toys and not for work. > > > For instance, for this reason I am unable to use the excellent GSL > > code in any of my work. > > > My favorite license style is Berkeley (e.g. PostgreSQL, ACE), followed > > by LGPL. > > > I have donated work on many GPL projects, but they have to be strictly > > hobby projects for me. > > > There is some chance I might use the LGPL subset, but those sort of > > things always seem half-hearted and I may need the functionality in > > the other parts and so I guess that I will stick with projects with a > > license style that is more useful for me. > > > Of course, there is room for any sort of license and I have worked on > > Public Domain, Berkeley, LGPL, GPL, closed source commercial and other > > sorts of projects and see value in all of them. > > > I just wanted you to think about the impact for people who would like > > to use your tools in a commercial environment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
