<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
If you do GPL, then anybody who uses your code in their commercial
product will be required to redistribute their source, which most
people do not want to do. If your code was in a library, then LGPL
would be better so they wouldn't have to give away their code. If
you plan to sell your app, perhaps a dual license GPL/proprietary
would be better for you.<br>
<br>
If you pick BSD/MIT/Apache, then others can give away your code,
sell it, do whatever they want, as long as they include your
copyright notice. Apache license has some nice patent protection
clauses.<br>
<br>
Look and see if there are similar open source apps to what yours
does and see what license they use. I find that you should just go
with the flow depending on what your code does. For example,
Wordpress and Drupal plugins should be GPL, Apache modules should be
Apache licensed, nginx modules should be BSD licensed, PHP
extensions should be PHP licensed, and so on.<br>
<br>
When you choose your license, you are choosing your community. BSD
licensed projects attract different people than GPL licensed
projects... meaning, if it's GPL licensed, some big companies won't
touch it with a ten foot pole, but BSD/Apache licensed projects can
gain corporate interest. Look at MySQL (GPL), not many people
contribute to it that aren't Oracle (Sun) employees.<br>
<br>
Personally, who cares? Based on my experience, most people will not
care about your project. I would choose either BSD or Apache
license. Give away the code. People might be more interested in
helping out. Forks of your code that are sold are never as
successful as the free core project. The core project has a name
for itself, it has the contributors, it has the momentum. Not many
(if any) forked projects could keep up with the core project.<br>
<br>
Best of luck,<br>
-Chris<br>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
On 7/10/11 2:55 AM, Andrew Berg wrote:
<blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_4E195B0A_2030904_gmail_com"
cite="mid:4E195B0A.2030904@gmail.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160
Since most software licenses are incredibly verbose, I can't be bothered
to read through even the major OSI-approved licenses. Essentially, for
my new project, I don't mind if others use the code in a commercial
product, but I do mind if they do little more than repackage it and sell
it. Using it to extend functionality is fine; using it as major
functionality or as a major component is not. Commercial use is allowed
with little, if any, restriction (e.g. using it to produce videos that
will be sold is okay). Which license(s) should I take a look at?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://enigmail.mozdev.org/">http://enigmail.mozdev.org/</a>
iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOGVsKAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LbusIANTckI7UiUKGMG6Ai+XIWMjx
yM6UuQXW/gT21Rc0V5gb1NvonnHY2i9Ug9qaBdjhcRRGrNc32O7TG41xxdE8WhFi
wKo8istGkT4MIuNCgPgsHZnXl+BxpFZ6RMk5PAtLy5eEcJ8/q1aGxqyNK6SvA/Tl
3PRqqvcB6+bv95iIFTAg9HnYN4NcfBwQrCM+UGGtTh/yCQZuTYAUP+MTaYgPjcdD
V/Oc1N3pLC07i2fMa66ySzXBICVxjMBfxWGutpcfeGWGfpJ1OMB4MsfaNE3z7Jzb
Ws/nfB9PZF5kM2OiCeIOGCE32obocnnLQmykxpXEgSvzUP2Uscx2wjN0+VsdQ14=
=d7Wo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tclug-list@mn-linux.org">tclug-list@mn-linux.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list">http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>