avahi-aliases icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
avahi-aliases copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon airtonix

Re-license under GPL

Open ergonlogic opened this issue 10 years ago • 7 comments

CC licenses are not considered appropriate for software, according to: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F. Unless you meant the license to only apply to the README...

They recommend a license from the FSF, which is basically some flavour of GPL.

As it stands, there are no software licenses that are technically compatible with CC.

ergonlogic avatar Jun 09 '14 02:06 ergonlogic

@ergonlogic would the MIT or BSD be acceptable as well? (I've not really paid too much attention to the process of licensing of my own creations).

Somehow (uneducated, first glance) GPL makes me feel a bit restricted. But I'm open to discussion.

airtonix avatar Jun 14 '14 05:06 airtonix

Certainly. The principal difference is whether you want derivatives to remain free also.

ergonlogic avatar Jun 14 '14 13:06 ergonlogic

I'd welcome a GPLv3+ licence. The process of licensing it as such is quite easy.

muelli avatar May 27 '15 15:05 muelli

An MIT license would be nice

wells avatar Jan 06 '17 18:01 wells

bump

ghost avatar Mar 28 '17 17:03 ghost

@airtonix The GPL doesn't restrict what you can do, just what others can do. The GPL is a great license, but so is MIT. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, GPL enforces a "share-alike" type rule, while the MIT license doesn't. Don't take this as legal advice, though.

benaubin avatar Dec 01 '17 15:12 benaubin

Github authored an excellent human-friendly resource https://choosealicense.com/ for these kinds of decisions. :bowing_man:

ghost avatar Dec 01 '17 17:12 ghost