Which license best fits this need?
btilly at gmail.com
Tue Aug 5 12:01:06 UTC 2008
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 4:02 AM, <james at architectbook.com> wrote:
> Are you familiar with OWASP? (http://www.owasp.org) Many of the codebases
> are dual-licensed where the notion of licensing under GPL is to encourage
> contribution by folks truly capable of propelling a project forward while
> also being licensed under BSD so as to not confuse enterprise-type users who
> benefit from the software but may not have the abilities to make it better.
Dual licensing those two licenses makes no sense to me since many BSD
licenses are GPL compatible. Therefore with just one license you
avoid confusing people while saying the same thing.
Anyone good with a strong commitment to the GPL should be able to
figure this out on their own, so explicitly licensing under the GPL
doesn't even buy you that.
> One example says that an Oracle, IBM, Sun, Microsoft, etc could truly make
> OWASP projects better and you wouldn't want them to fork a copy under their
> own brand while companies such as Wal-Mart, Pep Boys, Bob's Discount
> Furniture and other businesses whose primary business model isn't focused on
> IT should be able to use and tweak but with no commitments.
> Any thoughts on which llicense best fits this need?
Glancing at the project, it looks like you are taking applications and
improving them. In that case the best thing to do is to always use
the application's license. First of all because your work is
derivative of what you started with, so you can't relicense under
more generous license. But secondly because you would like your work
to be accepted back into the original application.
More information about the License-discuss