search

rvm / pluginator

A simple plugin system based on Gem.find_files
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
34 stars 8 forks source link

add license #4

Closed grosser closed 10 years ago

grosser commented 10 years ago

@mpapis

mpapis commented 10 years ago

hmm, where is the LICENSE file, but anyway I was thinking about Apache v2 to continue RVM 1.x ... finally I would prefer to get something that makes it open ... I was thinking on AGPL ;) maybe not seriously, but something close by, it has to be open

grosser commented 10 years ago

I don't care which one you pick, just want to make our organization-license-audit to be green ;)

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Michal Papis notifications@github.comwrote:

hmm, where is the LICENSE file, but anyway I was thinking about Apache v2to continue RVM 1.x ... finally I would prefer to get something hat makes it open ... I was thinking on AGPL ;) maybe not seriously, but something close bye, it has to be open

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/rvm/pluginator/pull/4#issuecomment-37897957 .

mpapis commented 10 years ago

ah so something fully open forcing openness is good enough? for sure nothing like BSD, I do not like to have any options to close it.

martinisoft commented 10 years ago

You're the creator so its ultimately your choice. I personally prefer Apache v2 because its more permissive. If you're worried about profit and derivative works, maybe check out GPLv3 or AGPL. The site https://tldrlegal.com/compare has a nice comparison tool for weighing those options and compatibility checking.

martinisoft commented 10 years ago

Also for what it's worth. Corporations (especially with patents to protect) tend to shy away from GPL/AGPL due to copyleft.

As with my previous comment and this one, I'm not an attorney and this is purely legal information. Not advice, which should be obtained via an attorney.

richo commented 10 years ago

AGPL probably won't bind meaningfully (since there's not really any "product" to expose to people on the web), and even then; licenses that actually don't allow modification without open source tend to be Machiavellian, difficult to enforce and generally pretty obscure.

What's the usecase you're actually trying to protect against? Even the left-est of copyleft licenses still only binds when you distribute eg, a binary but not the source code. Unless someone hacked on pluginator/RVM, then ran the hacked code through and obfuscator and shipped that I don't see much good to be created through licensing?

mpapis commented 10 years ago

the main point is I want RVM to stay it open, like people can not take it and close it, and we basically are there, I want just the license to reflect this

martinisoft commented 10 years ago

Maybe check out copy-left licenses like GPL, which is also compatible with Apache v2 for RVMv1 usage if needed. AGPL is aimed more at services and might be too restrictive.

grosser commented 10 years ago

I'd prefer "Apache v2", GPL is always weird because you have to figure out which flavor was the bad one our lawyers don't want ...

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Aaron Kalin notifications@github.comwrote:

Maybe check out copy-left licenses like GPL, which is also compatible with Apache v2 for RVMv1 usage if needed. AGPL is aimed more at services and might be too restrictive.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/rvm/pluginator/pull/4#issuecomment-37972446 .

mpapis commented 10 years ago

I have finally picked LGPL - it's the only one best matching my intentions for RVM to be free, anyone can be using it and no one can close it, almost ready adding all the required stuff, need to write small readme and push changes soon.