[tdsoc] Re: license of our projects
- From: Massimiliano Max Sala <maxsalacodes@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 13:56:20 +0100
Im in favour of lgpl but this is a personal opinion, Im not speaking ex
cathedra
Max
Sent from my iPad
On 03/mar/2013, at 10:16, Davide Kirchner <davide.kirchner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
