Topic: Best Open Source License?
Fhfjdjf !5GQYV7dxG6 started this discussion 10 years ago #49,583
MIT? GPL3? What is it? Open source is foreign to me. And no it's not for bbs clones.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #644,449
@OP
Get laid, poindexter.
Get laid, poindexter.
Fhfjdjf !5GQYV7dxG6 (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,450
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
Does the GLP license allow for modifications? Does it reuire these modifications to be open and free. And where might I obtain this license?
Does the GLP license allow for modifications? Does it reuire these modifications to be open and free. And where might I obtain this license?
DasSheeple joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 23 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #644,451
Post this on /g/ and you just might be the droplet that spilled over and started WWIII.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #644,497
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,710
https://tldrlegal.com/ Is there a reason not to use GPL?
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,719
r04r joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,728
http://choosealicense.com/ and https://opensource.org/licenses/
I like MIT. Or the WTFPL. MIT requires all forks/improvements to be available under the same license. That does NOT mean open source. That means anyone that does get the source/product gets it under that license. The WTFPL lets anyone do whatever the fuck they want, as long as the name is changed. If you care about forcing people to actually go open source with their forks/contributions you should go for one of the GPLs. Don't ask me about the difference between the two.
As for your question in @644,450, (Fhfjdjf !5GQYV7dxG6) all you have to do to distribute your project under a license is to mention it anywhere. It's usually a good idea to include the short (or full) version of the license in a file named LICENSE at the root of the project. You can also mention it in the readme, but that is not required at all. That's jut a courtesy. You are also not required to put headers in all of your source files.
It seems that choosealicense recommends putting the whole license in a file named LICENSE, but that is a bit much not required (for GPL at least). For GPLv2 see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC4 and for GPLv3 see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#howto. For MIT see https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
I like MIT. Or the WTFPL. MIT requires all forks/improvements to be available under the same license. That does NOT mean open source. That means anyone that does get the source/product gets it under that license. The WTFPL lets anyone do whatever the fuck they want, as long as the name is changed. If you care about forcing people to actually go open source with their forks/contributions you should go for one of the GPLs. Don't ask me about the difference between the two.
As for your question in @644,450, (Fhfjdjf !5GQYV7dxG6) all you have to do to distribute your project under a license is to mention it anywhere. It's usually a good idea to include the short (or full) version of the license in a file named LICENSE at the root of the project. You can also mention it in the readme, but that is not required at all. That's jut a courtesy. You are also not required to put headers in all of your source files.
It seems that choosealicense recommends putting the whole license in a file named LICENSE, but that is a bit much not required (for GPL at least). For GPLv2 see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC4 and for GPLv3 see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#howto. For MIT see https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
(Edited 13 minutes later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,732
r04r replied with this 10 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #644,733
Dhsuevdh !5GQYV7dxG6 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 17 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #644,825
@644,728 (r04r)
Thanks for the insight. I think I'll go MIT because GPL might scare developers away from using it. GPL seems to make any code that links to it have to be released, LGPL is a bit better on that but still I want something simple where a developer understands and won't hesitate to use it. I'm not too concerned about bastardized closed versions. I think the simple laws of economics would wipe those out or they would just be a custom version one developer uses for themselves.
Thanks for the insight. I think I'll go MIT because GPL might scare developers away from using it. GPL seems to make any code that links to it have to be released, LGPL is a bit better on that but still I want something simple where a developer understands and won't hesitate to use it. I'm not too concerned about bastardized closed versions. I think the simple laws of economics would wipe those out or they would just be a custom version one developer uses for themselves.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #644,931
the one you can safely disreguard
