Hi I have silently updated my scripts and reorganized the internal file structure. New webpages for my own scripts are available. And most importantly all GPL code are relicensed under the New BSD License. It is more comfortable with less license text and that does not scare user away, who are not familiar. Its still compatible to GPL code, so mixing is allowed.
Hope this is the right choice. What do you think about?
Currently, my own scripts supplied with the Ahk Standard Library Collection are still GPL licensed. But at next update, they will be New BSD too. ... just in case someone cares. :roll:
I changed my default license from GNU (L)GPL to New BSD
Started by
Tuncay
, Sep 26 2010 07:31 PM
7 replies to this topic
#3
Tuncay
-
- Members
- 1943 posts
Posted 26 September 2010 - 09:35 PM
fincs, I do not like such a "license", which is more a standardized and general public domain form. Before I changed my default license, I really compared them. My goal is to provide freedom as possible, BUT the open source mind should be preserved. Also credit is important to me.
With your WTFPL, someone have the rights to adapt your work and republishing it under his favorit license, saying he is the copyright holder. Its really free... but in negative way too! If you really do not care this, then it is probably good for you. But not for me.
I love the GPL in "most ways". Most problem is, its too huge for ahk scripts. GPL makes things complicated. Thats why I was searching for an "easier" alternative.
With your WTFPL, someone have the rights to adapt your work and republishing it under his favorit license, saying he is the copyright holder. Its really free... but in negative way too! If you really do not care this, then it is probably good for you. But not for me.
I love the GPL in "most ways". Most problem is, its too huge for ahk scripts. GPL makes things complicated. Thats why I was searching for an "easier" alternative.
#4
Guests
-
- Guests
Posted 27 September 2010 - 02:19 PM
I do not like any license that allows commercial exploitation of my code. I really like the BSD & MIT licenses, but they allow commercial companies to come in, steal your code, make a piece of crap software with it, then sell it for $1000 & not pay you a dime.
So while I love Open Source & Freeware, I could never use a really liberal license like that. & I don't like GPL cuz it infects code to always need to be GPL.
So while I love Open Source & Freeware, I could never use a really liberal license like that. & I don't like GPL cuz it infects code to always need to be GPL.
#5
guest3456
guest3456
-
- Guests
Posted 27 September 2010 - 02:39 PM
I do not like any license that allows commercial exploitation of my code. I really like the BSD & MIT licenses, but they allow commercial companies to come in, steal your code, make a piece of crap software with it, then sell it for $1000 & not pay you a dime.
So while I love Open Source & Freeware, I could never use a really liberal license like that. & I don't like GPL cuz it infects code to always need to be GPL.
well you could always sell the code yourself. if you make it available, you want people to use it. but you figure you've put in the hard work, so people should use it and give you credit, but they arent allowed to profit. usually people make code available because they want some credit or recognition for the good work theyve accomplished. but they are too lazy to go commercial with it themselves. well whoopdiedo. so a company uses your library, they still have to deal with the emails and support requests of the thousands of lusers who don't even know how to set up their implementation of your library. then they have to spend time/money advertising etc.
so much more goes into a commercial program than just using a few 'free' functions that are available
#6
Guests
-
- Guests
Posted 27 September 2010 - 03:19 PM
...if someone wanted to buy it, I would. Just need some way to accept money.well you could always sell the code yourself.
...yes, I want people to use it, in the spirit of Freeware/Open Source, not in the spirit of a company (or even a person) stealing it & making money off it (if I can't make money off my own code, no one else should {without cutting me in/paying me}). I feel if you make money by using a program, you can afford to pay for it...or at least donate something. This is different than, say Adobe, where you have to pay $3,000 before you make your 1st dime using their programs (& their DRM takes over your computer).if you make it available, you want people to use it.
...yes, but for their (money making) use of my scripts/programs/libraries, they should pay for it.so much more goes into a commercial program...
#7
Tuncay
-
- Members
- 1943 posts
Posted 27 September 2010 - 04:57 PM
Thats ok to me, as long as they respect the license and give appropiate credit. I do not have any problem if someone makes money out of my code.then sell it for $1000 & not pay you a dime.
Thats why LGPL (Lesser General Public License) was made for. It allows to use software which have any (compatible) license.So while I love Open Source & Freeware, I could never use a really liberal license like that. & I don't like GPL cuz it infects code to always need to be GPL.
#8
PhiLho
-
- Fellows
-
- 6850 posts
Posted 29 September 2010 - 08:04 PM
Nothing prevents from selling GPL software, that's even the business of lot of Linux distribution companies...I do not like any license that allows commercial exploitation of my code. I really like the BSD & MIT licenses, but they allow commercial companies to come in, steal your code, make a piece of crap software with it, then sell it for $1000 & not pay you a dime.
Of course, you can make (or take) a license explicitly forbidding commercial exploitation of your software.
