Electronics > Open Source Hardware

What licens should I chose?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Zipdox:
The GPL licenses are the de-facto best software licenses, unless you WANT companies to use your code in their proprietary programs. "Weak" licenses like MIT and BSD are effectively the same as making your code public domain, so it's pointless to use them. "Strict" copyleft licenses are the only way to ensure that you code remains free.

I suggest you read this article. While the language may be slightly inappropriate, the point being made is extremely valid.

If your program runs standalone on a computer, use GPL-3.
If your program provides a service over a network, use AGPL-3.
If your program is a library intended to be used in other programs, use LGPL-3.

I advise against writing your own license for several reasons:

* Your license would first need to get approved by the FSF or OSI to be considered free software or open source.
* You might forget something which results in loopholes that have already been thought out in established licenses.
* Your code becomes incompatible with integration into other free software.
* Distributions might be reluctant to package your software.
* Your license might satisfy your requirements, but it might not abide by the FSF free software requirements or the OSI requirements, effectively not making it free software or open source.
I wouldn't worry about people selling your software. If it's available for free, I doubt anyone would pay money for it, unless they are very misinformed, in which case, it isn't really your problem.

Zipdox:

--- Quote from: m98 on December 08, 2021, 11:38:21 pm ---There is no true license but the Unlicense.

--- End quote ---
Did you even read the post? This literally contradicts OPs requirements. Using the unlicense is effectively like writing a company's proprietary software for free.

m98:

--- Quote from: Zipdox on March 08, 2022, 12:01:30 pm ---
--- Quote from: m98 on December 08, 2021, 11:38:21 pm ---There is no true license but the Unlicense.

--- End quote ---
Did you even read the post? This literally contradicts OPs requirements. Using the unlicense is effectively like writing a company's proprietary software for free.

--- End quote ---
I simply advocate for using licenses that bring freedom in and keep the lawyers and buerocrats out. Why would I care how someone uses something I wrote? It's not like I'm getting paid regardless.

cdev:
If they use it commercially, but sell it affordably, I don't see them as being "for profit", so much. To me, It depends on how much they charge.



--- Quote from: FriedMule on December 06, 2021, 02:15:30 pm ---Thanks, I was looking at the AGPL because, as I understand it, does the GPL not prevent anyone from renting the software out, as long it is done via network or cloud, while AGPL restricts that part also.

My goal is to make a program truly free or gratis for everyone, while preventing anyone at all for, ever been able to use parts of the code to get money. I have seen too many open source projects where part or the whole code has been used as the main foundation with little to no change to then get sold.

--- End quote ---

Yes, I agree. But there are lots of FOSH products that are priced quite affordably and that does make a big difference.

free_electron:
"The following sourcecode is free to use in non-commercial applications and no profit can be made of it or derived products except by the original writer. Code is as-is and the user accepts any risk when using it."


that's really all you need.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version