Le 24/10/2014 02:55, Avery Payne a écrit :
At this point, I will probably dual-license everything as BSD 3-clause for the
scripts themselves, and if needed a 2nd license that matches whatever
framework they are running under - just for the sake of expediency.
That's my point: you don't have to
<mailto:ska-supervis...@skarnet.org>
Sent: 10/23/2014 3:07 PM
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org<mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
Subject: Re: License selection for process scripts
Licensing is only an issue if you want to distribute code together with
pre-existing licensed code
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>
> As for what kind of license is "the best", it's a highly religious subject
> and I very much wish to avoid this kind of debate on the mailing-list.
>
Not my intent at all. The last thing I want is one of the package
maintainers to conta
Licensing is only an issue if you want to distribute code together with
pre-existing licensed code. Since it's unlikely that your scripts will be
distributed together with runit, s6, daemontools, perp, or anything else,
the fact that they all have different licenses should not be a problem for
yo
BSD and MIT licenses are the most open and give the most freedom. However if
you want full control of the project, go with GPL or LGPL.
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:39:33 -0700
> Subject: License selection for process scripts
> From: avery.p.pa...@gmail.com
> To: supervision@list
This may sound a bit off-topic but it has a practical purpose. Currently I
am working under the assumption that a BSD 3-Clause license may be
sufficient to provide process control scripts for daemontools, runit, and
s6. However, each has a different license. I need to find a license that
provide
