Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 6:13 PM UTC

madrobby wrote: post #18

DannyBee wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in that case, he's trying to classify 1000+ open source licenses into 4 categories, which doesn't really work out well without a dictator. People have different views on what "permissive" is. Even if you told people what they should choose for each license, they will still choose what their ideology says is right about the license. IE plenty of people will choose "permissive" for GPL. I've spent an inordinate am…

It's actually really simple: "Permissive": anything that is generally MIT/BSD/WTF/Apache 2.0 "Restrictive": anything that is GPL or requires you to pay for or share all sources Given that the vast majority of software use only one of a handful of licenses, I think that's a non-issue (tho there may be edge cases, I agree with that). For stuff that is not categorized, people can just put in "other". (Do you have a list…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 6:17 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #93

kevindication wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the GPL linking exception exists because of the taint that can be introduced by using GPL'd code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

No, the GPL linking exception exists to allow proprietary code to link against GPL'd code. It is a common myth (propagated by anti-GPL activists) that using GPL'd code in your software requires you to put your software under the GPL. In reality, your code can be under nearly any open-source license. I often receive emails from users asking me to re-license one of my libraries from GPL to BSD/MIT so they can use it in…

Post by kevindication » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 6:26 PM UTC

jmillikin wrote: post #93

kevindication wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the GPL linking exception exists because of the taint that can be introduced by using GPL'd code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

No, the GPL linking exception exists to allow proprietary code to link against GPL'd code. It is a common myth (propagated by anti-GPL activists) that using GPL'd code in your software requires you to put your software under the GPL. In reality, your code can be under nearly any open-source license. I often receive emails from users asking me to re-license one of my libraries from GPL to BSD/MIT so they can use it in…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 6:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #16

madrobby wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LICENSE or COPYING file in the repository wins, obviously. Also, not everyone would set the setting. But it's a start.

Just seems like a source of potentially expensive misunderstandings.

Post by reidrac » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 6:46 PM UTC

nknight wrote: post #29

The unnecessary editorializing is annoying. The point, which I agree with, could have been made without the self-centered snipes at licenses you happen to dislike.