Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 18:02 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 354833
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-18
I think it is bad to have so much license proliferation, and the number FLOSS licenses should be reduced. But the GPL is one of the most well-designed and tested FLOSS licenses, along with the Apache License version 2. I think in practice most FLOSS software can be covered under either:
- Apache License version 2 (as a modern replacement for the BSD license). For situations where the author does not mind incoorperation in proprietary software, or when a piece of software aims to be a standard implementation.
- LGPL: in cases where use with proprietary software is ok, but a library itself should stay FLOSS software.
- GPL: the defacto copyleft license.
- Affero GPL: for software where the author also wants to guarantee freeness when the software is used as a network service.
Personally, I prefer the Apache license version 2, it's simple, it's understandable, and I usually don't mind how my code is used as long as people give proper credit.