license recommendation

[Matthew Flaschen]

David Woolley wrote:
> Mr SZ wrote:
>> If the end user is a developer,then he can ask for the source code and
>> if the developer makes changes/improvements,he is required to submit
>> the changes  back to him.
> 
> Such licenses are generally discouraged because they are unenforceable
> and because it is unclear what to do when the original licensor
> disappears.  Most developers will avoid them, if there is any alternative.

This is true, and I believe an ordinary copyleft license (such as the
GNU General Public License) will serve him well.  In the interests of
full disclosure, the Reciprocal Public License requires developers of
modified versions to "Notify the Licensor of the availability of Source
Code to Your Extensions in a timely fashion and include in such notice a
brief description of the Extensions, the distinctive title used, and
instructions on how to acquire the Source Code and future updates."  I
would strongly recommend against using this license, as it is
burdensome, over-complex, and as a result very unpopular.

> PS this is off charter. The list is really for discussing licence
> document proposals.

Right.  It's probably worthwhile to push this kind of discussion onto
another list (license-advice ?).

Matt Flaschen