What the world needs now is NOT another open source license. I'd rather never touch another line of software again that had a custom license.
All that does it make it difficult to interoperate with other packages, and Make it difficult to build my project, because I need to worry about 15 types of overlap.
It's 5AM and I haven't slept yet but here's the 3 second version of how licenses work-
GPL- You post your code. If I release changes, I need to post my code too.
aGPL- Same as GPL, but applies to web services.
LGPL- You post your code. If I change YOUR CODE, I need to release THOSE changes, but not my whole app.
MPL- Like the LGPL, but incompatible. Adds a line saying that people who use your code need to license the Patents, not just the code. The FSF says this is implied in the LGPL, but MPL makes it explicit.
BSD/MIT - Feel free to use the code. You don't have to contribute back.
Apache- Like BSD, but contributors must agree to license any patents.
WTFPL- Do whatever the fuck you want.
Just pick the one you like.
It sounds like you want LGPL or MPL. LGPL is the more often used of the two.
Even Firefox (The M in MPL stands for Mozilla...) now offers it's code under the LGPL in addition to the MPL, so there's little incentive to put new code under MPL-only.
I understand it's quite early for you now. I can assure oyu, we have looked at all the licenses you mentioned.
They all care about the business of sharing code and not the business of making money. This more of a general problem or merely lack of alternatives, is what the blog post is all about.
I understand what you're saying, but I promise that the creation of another open source license isn't the solution.
It WILL Strictly limit usage of your code, to the point that open sourcing it won't make much of a difference. You won't get the goodwill, you won't get the patches, it's just a bad idea. It makes it difficult for everyone else, and doesn't help you.
If you want something that forces people to contribute back, I'd suggest a dual-license, like you point out MySQL does with GPL/Proprietary. That way if they go GPL, they'll contribute back code, if they go Proprietary, they'll give you money. Either way, you win.
This is why most of my recent stuff is MIT-licensed. This way I basically tell people that they're free to do whatever they want with my code, as long as they don't expect a warranty.
Comments
What the world needs now is NOT another open source license. I'd rather never touch another line of software again that had a custom license.
All that does it make it difficult to interoperate with other packages, and Make it difficult to build my project, because I need to worry about 15 types of overlap.
It's 5AM and I haven't slept yet but here's the 3 second version of how licenses work-
GPL- You post your code. If I release changes, I need to post my code too.
aGPL- Same as GPL, but applies to web services.
LGPL- You post your code. If I change YOUR CODE, I need to release THOSE changes, but not my whole app.
MPL- Like the LGPL, but incompatible. Adds a line saying that people who use your code need to license the Patents, not just the code. The FSF says this is implied in the LGPL, but MPL makes it explicit.
BSD/MIT - Feel free to use the code. You don't have to contribute back.
Apache- Like BSD, but contributors must agree to license any patents.
WTFPL- Do whatever the fuck you want.
Just pick the one you like. It sounds like you want LGPL or MPL. LGPL is the more often used of the two.
Even Firefox (The M in MPL stands for Mozilla...) now offers it's code under the LGPL in addition to the MPL, so there's little incentive to put new code under MPL-only.
I understand it's quite early for you now. I can assure oyu, we have looked at all the licenses you mentioned. They all care about the business of sharing code and not the business of making money. This more of a general problem or merely lack of alternatives, is what the blog post is all about.
I understand what you're saying, but I promise that the creation of another open source license isn't the solution.
It WILL Strictly limit usage of your code, to the point that open sourcing it won't make much of a difference. You won't get the goodwill, you won't get the patches, it's just a bad idea. It makes it difficult for everyone else, and doesn't help you.
If you want something that forces people to contribute back, I'd suggest a dual-license, like you point out MySQL does with GPL/Proprietary. That way if they go GPL, they'll contribute back code, if they go Proprietary, they'll give you money. Either way, you win.
This is why most of my recent stuff is MIT-licensed. This way I basically tell people that they're free to do whatever they want with my code, as long as they don't expect a warranty.