[tdsoc] Re: license of our projects
- From: Davide Kirchner <davide.kirchner@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:16:53 +0000 (GMT)
If those are the requirements, then Apache2 is the most appropriate, but I find
LGPL a good compromise between permissive and copyleft licences.
Note that, according to Apache2 licence, we must provide a NOTICE file in order
to force attribuition of our work in derivative works.
Davide
>________________________________
> Da: Lorenzo Nicolodi <lorenzo.nicolodi@xxxxxxxxx>
>A: tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Inviato: Sabato 2 Marzo 2013 21:32
>Oggetto: [tdsoc] Re: license of our projects
>
>
>thanks federico.
>
>so apache2 seems more appropriate.... any other thought from you guys?
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Federico "fox" Scrinzi <fox91@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>On sab, 2013-03-02 at 13:27 +0100, Lorenzo Nicolodi wrote:
>>
>>> the last step we need to accomplish is to decide which type of
>>> opensource license our projects will use. we need something which
>>> allows
>>> everyone to use / modify our code for both free and commercial
>>> open/closed source projects, if and only if they indicate us as the
>>> source of the work.
>>
>>GPL and LGPL are not compliant with your requirements. If the software
>>is modified and you use such licenses the third party must release the
>>modifed version under the same license.
>>So I think that the Apache license fits best (or BSD, MIT, ecc..).
>>
>>
>>--
>>f.
>>
>> "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache
>> invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors."
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Lorenzo Nicolodi
>
>
Other related posts:
