Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:00 UTC, submitted by Timothy R. Butler
GNU, GPL, Open Source Tim Butler knew when he mentioned something negative about the GNU Project's General Public License (GPL), in his column on KDE last week, he would inevitably be accused of arguing the GPL was a bad license. What did not fit into that piece shall now be dealt with: is the GPL a bad license or is the issue he complained about something else?
Thread beginning with comment 3567
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
license Hell
by on Wed 13th Jul 2005 14:44 UTC

Member since:

If you realy realy want your source to stay open, use the GPL/LGPL thats what they are for. They might not be perfect but no license is. If you want to give your source to the comunity and dot give a shit about if somebody closes it, or you don't want to run down posible licensing violations or plan on making a comertial for youself later uste the MIT. Why not the BSD license? Well when you say the MIT license everybody understands that you use the MIT/X license but when you say the BSD license nobody knows if you are talking about the 4, 3 or 2 clause version.
If you must use the MPL or a derivitive license do us a favor und triple license it under MPL/GPL/LGPL. If you need to add clausls to the LGPL make them optional. So we can all just get along.

P.S.: If you realy realy don't give a fuck, why not use the "Do what the fuck you want" license, and yes its realy a license. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: license Hell
by Kick The Donkey on Wed 13th Jul 2005 15:14 in reply to "license Hell"
Kick The Donkey Member since:
2005-07-06

I typically prefer the BPL (Beer Public Licence):

I don't give a damn what you do with this code. However, optional compensation for the author should come in the form of beer from a good, beer-producing country.

Reply Parent Score: 3