Closed clothbot closed 13 years ago
I think so. Any reason not to just slap it in there and then switch if we come up with a reason to change it? I'm kind of murky on which one of the myriad OpenSource licenses are best....
The GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html) is the most common one most open source software is released under, not to mention the RepRap and MakerBot software and design files. More details about GPL here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
There are alternatives (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses) but GPLv3 should be sufficient. There's the Lesser GPL (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html), but that's more for libraries than end-user applications.
The GPL license template is here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
...convention sez the file is supposed to be called COPYING, not LICENSE. I'll check in a first draft with your name as the author, since this is your puppy. :-)
Okay, gave it a look (it's been a while since I read the GNU) and I say right on. GNU looks like the kind of license that does the two things I wanted: 1: Makes sure people will always be able to get a free slicer app that is explicitly ready to be hacked and ported, and 2: Makers of commercial stuff will be able to bundle it with or even integrate it into their printers, but if they do will have to include some pointers to the original stuff, making sure that the software (and associated projects like RepRap) continue to benefit from any popularity derivatives get. In short, what I wanted was to protect whatever good this stuff does for the community, and keep it from being an evolutionary dead end, and I think we've got it!
I'm fine with GPL, BSD, or whatever.
I just realized we don't have a formal LICENSE file in place.
I've been operating under the assumption it's GPL. Agreed?