Timeline for Mix three different licenses for an open-source software
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2011 at 15:58 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Xananax: Absolutely no offense taken. You had two reasonable choices, and took one (and it's not like I'm desperate for the rep anyway). | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 15:43 | comment | added | Xananax | Then no offense, but I'll accept ammoQ's answer. Yours helped me more personally, but if I landed there from a google search with ten other open tabs researching the matter, I'd like the most concise answer possible. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 15:25 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Xananax: There's no site policy on accepting answers, although I do prefer it when people accept answers that are flat wrong. You should generally accept the answer you personally thought helped you personally most. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 15:19 | comment | added | Xananax | So now I am convinced: LGPL for the framework, GPL for the app, CC for the artwork. My problem is you and @ammoQ have the same answer, only one more concise (ammoQ) and one more detailed (@David Thornley). Which do I check as the right answer? Is there any SXchange policy on this? | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 13:57 | comment | added | David Thornley | @Xananax: That's why I recommended LGPL for the framework. It at least hinders some form of sale, and if the included framework code can be separated from the application code (such as in a DLL) it imposes no obligation on the using code. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 11:55 | comment | added | therobyouknow | A good open-source software engineer should know that it is better not to modify an open-source project "forking" because if you yourself release an improved version of the framework that has features that they can benefit from, then their software that uses their version of the framework may not be able to use your new version because of APIs changing, or code that obsoletes previous code that their version depends on. Better to submit any such modifications to the author of the code for inclusion. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 11:55 | comment | added | therobyouknow | @Xananax - "I don't want to force people to release derivative works under an open-source license" - sure, if people don't have to modify your framework to use it, or build on it, or enhance it, then this is easy. Your code and there code remains separate - and so can be governed by different licenses. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 11:20 | comment | added | Xananax | LGPL & CC for framework & artwork, ok. But I don't want to force people to release derivative works under an open-source license. If my framework is used in a larger app, I just need, for example, a link to the source in the "about" page, or in the footer. It doesn't make sense to force someone to release an app open-sourced if my framework contributes to 50% or less of the code. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 11:14 | comment | added | Xananax | Furthermore, I have a personal grudge against large companies and I would like to do my part in promoting freelancing and freelancers networks by allowing freelancers to use my code as much as they like to, but disallow large companies from doing the same. I guess if it gets too complex, I can forget about that too. | |
| Jun 17, 2011 at 11:12 | comment | added | Xananax | Point taken. But I really don't want to see a lawyer, it's not that important. I mean it's a one-man job, it'll never compete with larger frameworks out there such as codeIgniter or cake, and I don't want to give it more time than necessary. As I commented to ammoQ's answer, I am trying to do a little self-promotion along releasing a framework that I deem useful (and simpler than the examples cited), so I would like to protect my own framework as the main reference for projects that stem from it. But that goal is less important than just releasing the framework and allow people to use it. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 14:33 | history | answered | David Thornley | CC BY-SA 3.0 |