Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 13, 2019. It is now read-only.

Licenses

Jump to bottom
mskmoorthy edited this page Sep 7, 2012 · 2 revisions

Creative Commons licensing terms explicitly do not address the needs of software. - Thanks to Rob Escriva ' 10

Here's a rundown:

  • GPL: Version 2 has loopholes regarding patents and tivo-isation (ask me for more on those). Version 3 has covered these, but is backwards incompatible. In order to use GPL, you must put a pointer to the license at the top of each file as the entire thing is too long to fit.

  • BSD: Short, sweet and to the point. Additionally the language implies patent coverage. There are three variants of the BSD license. No one uses the 4-clause variant (you must mention Regents of Cali. in advertising). Most people use the three clause (includes terms preventing original author's name from being used to promote derivatives).

  • MIT: Like the BSD license, but from the west coast.

  • Apache: Has some nice terms, like reciprocity. If you sue someone using an Apache license over the content of the license, you lose the right to use that software.

  • Mozilla: Just don't.

  • WTFPL: Just don't.

Chosing the right license is important as it protects your work with the same law that protects movie companies and the music industry. Ask yourself the following questions:

  • Do I mind if someone takes this and turns it into a commercial product? Apple did this with BSD licensed code when it created OS X.

  • Do I think I'll wish to change licenses (or allow others to change licenses) in the future? Beryl did this when it forked Compiz; the result was code could not move upstream.

  • Am I going to include media in my distributions? Then pick a code license, and a comparable media license (e.g. CC-By/BSD or CC-By-SA/GPL).

I personally pick the BSD as companies are least opposed to it. If a company incorporates my code into their product, it is a validation of my work. Additionally, while they cannot use my name, I certainly can use theirs (which increases my ability to charge for consulting).

The MIT's content is equally good in my opinion, but I like the structure of the BSD better (somewhat of a irrational compulsion; I cannot describe why MIT's structure is bad, it just doesn't jive with my brain).

I avoid the GPL as it is lengthy and tends to frighten companies. Like I said above, I want companies using my product. As votebox is going to be built on an existing operating system or base, I recommend adopting the license of the distribution you use (e.g. BSD if you go with FreeBSD or OpenBSD, but GPL if you use Fedora or Debian).

Fedora has a nice document to tell more: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

Clone this wiki locally