Consider changing license type to reciprocal

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The license type of yaml-cpp is currently unencumbered. This means that anyone 
is free to make changes and improvements and not share them with the rest of 
the world.

A reciprocal license on the other hand, will compel modification/improvements 
to be made publicly accessible. Reciprocal licenses are non-viral and 
non-poisonous to the companies that include your source code in theirs. In my 
experience, reciprocal licenses are the healthiest license for any software 
product out there intended to be used by for-profit companies: You software 
gets high usage and the companies are required to post any modifications that 
are made.

The list of some common reciprocal licenses include:
CDDL 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
CPL 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php
EPL 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php
IPL 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php
MPL 1.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.0.php
MPL 1.1 http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php
APSL 2.0 http://opensource.org/licenses/apsl-2.0.php

If you decide to use one of these license, it will be worth it to make an 
exemption for any changes related to build files. This will prevent companies 
from posting changes related to customized build files (such as non-make build 
files).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by nite...@google.com on 17 Nov 2010 at 5:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Those licenses only add more bureaucracy. The MIT license is sufficient. It is 
generally worthwhile to contribute changes back anyway to avoid having to 
maintain them.

Original comment by B17C...@gmail.com on 26 Mar 2014 at 8:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Happy with MIT license. Closing this issue.

Original comment by jbe...@gmail.com on 24 Jan 2015 at 9:49

• Changed state: WontFix