> OK, so I've got some Actionscript that I want to release under a Free > Software license. ... > a) the code depends on the fabulous AnimationPackage. This is > licensed under the Mozilla Public License. Do I have to license my code > the same way (my code can't function without it)?
Whenever I release something open source, that I actually want people to use, I use a BSD/MIT license [1]. It is compatible with everything, and easy to explain to clients when I want to use that library in their project [2]. On your download page you only put your code, and tell people what dependencies they need. Effectively anyone using your code will be limited by the slightly more restrictive MPL license of the dependencies. Darren [1]: I recently switched to using MIT for new projects as I realized I didn't fully understand everything in the BSD license (in particular the implications of "Redistributions in binary form must ..."): http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php [2]: Unlike the GPL virus which when explained usually results in the library not being allowed. I've become passionately anti-GPL over the years. In my experience people are just as willing to send in improvements for an MIT license project as for a GPL one. The GPL just takes away a person's freedom not to. I like freedom: it helps me concentrate on the code. _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
