On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 14:52 +0100, David Given wrote: > The usual recommendations are to pick a standard OSI compliant > license and not customise it. Using a standard license makes life > easier for users because they don't have to think about the > implications --- everyone already knows what BSD licenses, GPL > licenses etc mean. My usual analogy is to suggest thinking about it > like an API. These are good recommendations. > https://choosealicense.com/ is a good resource here and gives > reasonable advice. I feel like the framing on this site is slightly incorrect, copyleft licenses are not about "sharing improvements" with developers, but about ensuring software freedom for downstream users. It is only the cultural aspects of the FLOSS community that lead to sharing improvements, not copyleft licenses. Any license that mandated sharing improvements probably would not meet the DFSG/OSD/FSD. > I'd suggest that if the author is concerned about people using their > work commercially, then the author should look at the LGPL The LGPL does not preclude using the library commercially and indeed a license that did this would not meet the DFSG/OSD/FSD. > this will make it easy to for users to use the library in another > program, but will require that if the user modifies it or base work > on it, they have to distribute the modified source. Indeed. Note the LGPL also requires that it has to be easy for users to use a modified version of LGPL library with things linked against the original version of the LGPL library, either through dynamic linking or by making it possible to re-link applications using the library. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part