What license do you use for open source software you create, sempai?
I personally start with AGPL for any network services and GPL for everything else. It seems easier to start with a copyleft license and go more permissive if need be than to start permissive and wish I had started copyleft after somebody makes a closed-source hostile fork of my code without contributing back.
MIT
Anything else and you're focusing too much on the license and not the code.
WTFPL.
Only thing to use.
>>53241385
>MIT
Its like you want proprietary projects to cuck your code.
>>53241473
As I said, if you're worried about how people will use your code, you are focusing too much on licenses and not enough on code.
Any license that effectively puts your code into public domain(ie BSD/MIT/X11). If you want to give your code away keep it simple.
>>53240887
What's an example of a patent?
>>53240887
LGPL seems fine. Use my software freely, but if you modify it, you should share the code. I think that is an acceptable condition.
>>53241508
>spend 1 minute putting license text in the project
>>53240887
AGPL/LGPL are the only licenses that make sense.
>>53241636
>spend rest of your life trying to hold other people to the license
>>53241632
What if you just make minor changes and use it in a closed program? Can you open source just the few modified lines, or must you distribute the entire library?
>>53240887
Whatever license my company tells me to use.
>working for free in your free time
>>53241508
>PLEASE TAKE ALL MY SOURCE CODE AND DON'T GIVE ME ANY CREDIT!!!
>>53244233
The original 4 clause BSD license had a condition where you had to give the original author credit. It became a giant clusterfuck though so everyone just stopped using it.
If you want to be associated with all derivative software you can always use something like CC BY
>>53243350
If I understand it correctly, LGPL will require you to publish the changed lines under LGPL. But the project, that depends on my code can be licensed anyhow you want. It is GPL, that requires the whole project to be published under the same license.
>>53245958
>>53243350
It's a little hazy how LGPL can be used in closed source applications. Using LGPL code as a linked library is 100% fine, and if you make changes to the LGPL library code you just release the changes to that code and not the rest of the application.
>>53241643
>AGPL
How come? If your program isn't supposed to be a web service running on some server, all that you're accomplishing with the AGPL is making your code incompatible with regular GPL.
>>53246010
LGPL specifically requires dynamic linking. If you statically link your code with LGPL code then you have to distribute your program under LGPL as well. MPL 2.0 is basically equivalent to LGPL except that it allows static linking as well.
Would LGPL be good for regular programs to be used with proprietary software? I want my source code to be released if modified but also want to allow it to be used with propriety software.
IDGAFGPL
BASICALLY MEANS ITS OPEN SOURCE DO WHATEVEN YOU WANT WITH IT.
>>53246161
Sounds about right.
>>53246161
I think it is the idea behind LGPL.
See:
>>53246092
CDDL master race reporting in!
>>53246249
>>53246329
Is LGPL for libraries only? Is it good to use for non libraries?
>>53241385
>enjoying the cuck life
>>53246509
You can use it for anything you want. It's generally used for libraries because there's usually no reason to use it for whole programs.
>>53246530
>because there's usually no reason to use it for whole programs.
Why? Is there a LGPL equivalent for whole programs?
>>53246567
GPL
I mostly use GPL, sometimes LGPL for libraries, and Apache for when I want to be permissive.
>>53246572
Regular GPL cannot be used with proprietary software
>>53246567
GPL is what is normally used for whole programs. Dynamic linking exemption doesn't really make sense when you're building a complete program. Any software that makes use of your program would be a derivative so it would be obligated to release code anyway.
If you want you can divide your program up into pieces and license the interface and other non-crucial parts under GPL and the backend code under LGPL.
>>53246632
What do you think about the MPL license?
>>53246608
>>53246632
>>53246725
If you want your program to be compatible with proprietary software all the way down to binaries you could also use MPL/CDDL but be aware that these license cannot ever change except by the original author. LGPL is compatible with GPL because it's basically GPL with extra terms and when you combine it with GPL those extra terms go away. MPL/CDDL are incompatible with GPL because they cannot remove one of their terms, any significant portion of code must always remain under MPL/CDDL no matter what. This makes it impossible to interact with GPL directly they have to use an intermediate.
>>53246744
>>53246725
Although I think MPL2.0 fixes this somehow I cannot remember what Mozilla changed.
>>53246608
Regular GPL is a distribution license
