Thinking of what license to use for some of my small libraries/projects, currently thinking of either Apache 2.0 or BSD license.
Apache 2.0 seems to state that if the source is changed this must be said by the one who has changed it , I am thinking of releasing a framework as well, so I guess Apache 2.0 will not be suitable in this case.
What do other /g/entooman use?
if it isn't important (i.e. no one will ever profit by using it) I go with MIT license.
Best case is that some indians start using my framework, but not anything major.
Latest GNU GPL for everything.
GPL 3 or you're a faggot.
>>53550769
>>53550785
This.
Public Domain/CC0
>>53550281
I use permissive licenses (BSD) for libraries and copyleft (GPLv3) licenses for end-user tools. I try to go with standard licenses where applicable (e.g. MIT for Go).
GPLv3 will restrict the usage of the libraries, frameworks I create as the user must make any changes done to them public and free to use.
If I am using some framework to build a solution for a client, neither the client or I will probably want the modified base and anything build on it to be public.
Then again I could be just interpreting it wrong.
>>53551312
>GPLv3 will restrict the usage
No, it's not a usage license.
>the user must make any changes
Users don't make changes, developers do.
> I could be just interpreting it wrong
You are.
>>53551056
>I use permissive licenses (BSD)
good goy!
>>53551342
By the user of the framework I mean the developer that is using it.
It will restrict the usage as in, it requires the developer to show any changes done to the framework, for example implementing a new feature at the base or similar.
>>53551423
>requires the developer to show any changes done to the framework
False. You are required to give the source only if you distribute. If you "build a solution for a client", the only parties that need access to the source are you and the client. If neither of you wants to make it public, you don't have to because it's not required.
>>53550281
http://www.wtfpl.net/
