What type of license should we use?

raphendyr / yaal

Yet another AVR Abstraction Library

2 stars 1 forks source link

What type of license should we use? #2

Open raphendyr opened 12 years ago

raphendyr commented 12 years ago

What type of license should this library be released under?

I think license should be permissive

Boost - wikipedia
- Boost is widly used in c++ projects. Is this c++ or avr/arduino project?
LGPL - wikipedia
- Arduino Java code is GPL and c/c++ code is LGPL licensed
Apache License - wikipedia
MIT - wikipedia

Any fun with copyleft licenses?

GPL - wikipedia

Any other ideas?

raphendyr commented 12 years ago

Maybe simplest ever would be "If you try to sue us, you are not allowed to use this library."

raphendyr commented 11 years ago

I kinda like JSON license. It has a point. Only problem is when json code is packaged in other software (debian and fedora bug about json and php).

Other nice one is WTFPL - What the Fuck public license or Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License.

artob commented 11 years ago

You might also consider CC0 or the Unlicense for maximal permissiveness.

raphendyr commented 10 years ago

Oh. I forgot to thank for the information about those two licenses.

I noticed that this project is effected by avr-libc license as long as it's used: http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/LICENSE.txt If someone is producing proprietary software, I think it's safe to consider yaal under the same license for now.

Any case, if there is need for the license for any one, comment this issue.

I believe that we need to implement those parts our self which are currently used from avr-libc (should be only register names). And then it's the users problem what avr-libc license says if she/he is using that.

raphendyr commented 10 years ago

ISC license