License comaptibility?

[gondur]

Hi, please reconsider the license for your code parts (you can change your original stuff license anytime...it get complicated when others start to contribute) as the MS shared source license and GPL are incompatible.

Maybe use public domain (CC0) or a permissive license (BSD).

For instance the JA2 stracciatella project makes all own additions for license compatiblity reasons public domain.

good luck with your porting work! :)

[alariq]

Hi, Gondur!

Thank you, I'll see what to do about it, I am not a big expert in licenses :-)

2017-04-23 22:06 GMT+03:00 gondur notifications@github.com:

Hi, please reconsider the license for your code parts (you can change your original stuff license anytime...it get complicated when others start to contribute) as the MS shared source license and GPL are incompatible.

Maybe use public domain (CC0) or a permissive license (BSD).

For instance the JA2 stracciatella project makes all own additions for license compatiblity reasons public domain.

good luck with your porting work! :)

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/alariq/mc2/issues/2, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACJXQQlwGwr-ANixTcmnNPsUQTVHKDzVks5ry6EhgaJpZM4NFgLo .

-- Шукай в телефонi мiй слiд...

[alariq]

closing it as I added license.txt

[gondur]

Hello Alariq, i saw the closing on this topic but the license is still GPL v3 :/ Have you really thought this through ?- I 'm sure the license incomaptibility will lead to problems and rejections in future - if you need help with the license selection you can ask maybe specialist at the OSI or the FSF - cheers

[gondur]

some links to license comaptiblity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html

The MS shared source license and GPL are incompatible - you can't edit them under GPLv3 (your work) there is even a problem in linking stuff together if files are clearly separated - I still woudl recommend to put your work under the CC0 or BSD license.

[gondur]

another possiblity is that you ask MS for relicensing: in fact they did it for OpenAllegiance! this would be the best case - https://www.freeallegiance.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=72206

[alariq]

Hi, gondur. All I need is so that derivatives of my work should also be open sourced. If you know how to do it feel free to suggest an option. I'll look at the last link you've posted

[gondur]

Hello Alariq - yes, I understand. But you have to care about the original license - ms shared source.

I see the following options:

• you put your work under MS shared license (Shared Source Limited Permissive License), too - compatible, no problems (maybe problems with incorporating GPL source code).
• you talk with MS about relicensing the existing code base to BSD/MIT - they did it with Allegiance. best option.
• you put your work under MIT/BSD/CC0 - no problems.
• PS: I noticed another option: dual licensing: you put your work under the MS shared source limited permissive license AND GPLv3. This complete project would be still MS shared source, but at least your work would be GPLv3 if at some point some stuff can be extracted for separate usage

NOT a option:

• GPLv3 as license for your code is not an option, as both parts would incompatible (dual licensing fixes this)
• GPLv3 for the whole project is especially no option - you can't relicense the existing code base, as you did now -> both will prevent inclusion into distributions repos & will made this project a "hot potato" no one wants to touch.