tehKaiN
commented
6 years ago After some thoughts I'm not quite happy with idea that someone may take this code, do some potentially useful modifications and not release them to the public, so I was thinking of a license which enforces releasing all changes to ACE. I've dug a bit and LGPL is almost ideal for the task, but there are some caveats when releasing a game made with unchanged ACE:
- you must provide your propertiary code in a form linkable to self-compiled ACE variant - think of all ACE breaking changes and it's not quite a good idea.
- this gets even more messy with static linking - think of distributing all those irrelevant .o files of your main project.
So I've found MPL2.0 which:
- has very short license headers
- requires you to publish all changed sources of MPLed project
- you don't have to publish anything if you just use it as an unchanged backbone.
- it's not viral!
@approxit atm this is my favourite. What are your thoughts?
approxit
There are some options. MIT, BSD, Unlicense or GPL. Also, this decision may affect our prods' licenses.
Viral vs Non-viral (GPL)
Pros:
Cons:
Attribution vs non-attribution (BSD)
Pros:
Cons:
MIT vs Unlicense
All cons mentioned above are irrelevant if we just use MIT/Unlicense.
MIT is just an info about author without any restrictions, so It's mostly cool. What isn't cool is that most licenses require list of authors who modified source files. I don't really like keeping up-to-date list of contributors in copyright notice. That's getting messy very quickly.
So I propose using unlicense - at first line text below becomes copyrighted, then all rights are passed to everyone who's reading. Since there are no rights to be cleaimed, it's irrelevant who's listed as author. And there are really more important things to do than looking after all that license bs.