Which license to choose?

[David Woolley]

Kevin Hunter wrote:
> At 11:59pm -0500 Thu, 25 Feb 2010, John Cowan wrote:
>> Kevin Hunter scripsit:
>>> For the code part, what Joe would eventually like is for users to be
>>> able to freely engage and modify his code, but he wants to ensure that
>>> they give back any updates, fixes, or enhancements they make.  
>> [ GPL does not require downstream licensees to pass changes back, only
>>   forward to users of the downstream code. ]
>>
>> [ GPL further only enforces this rule *if* code is distributed. No
>>   distribution, no code sharing necessary. ]
> 
> Noted about the distinction.  Thank you *very* much for clarifying my
> misunderstanding.  The point is that he wants to make his project as
> Free as possible, while not deterring commercial use.  Is the LGPL the

He doesn't want it as free as possible.  If he did, BSD would be the 
clear option.  He wants to put restrictions on what commercial 
organisations typical want to do, which is to keep the source and 
modifications to it secret.

> best course then?  As I understand his project, it's to be in parts,
> both a front-end for end-user use, and libraries for linking and
> development purposes.
> 
> Does the LGPL only apply to libraries, for instance?

No L now stands for "lesser".


> Fair enough; my assumption and projections of his code base may be
> incorrect, but the question is still out there: Is there a way to
> protect his name if someone else does something stupid with his project
> (and then advertises it)?

Live in an enlightened part of the world, like Europe, that respects 
"moral rights" in intellectual property?
> 

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.