If you had to choose a open source license for PRISM or your own project what license would you use? What ever get's the most votes in a week will be the license for PRISM.


Apache License, 2.0
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: Yes

BSD - New and Simplified BSD licenses
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: Yes

GPL - GNU General Public License
Link with code using a different license: No
Release changes under a different license: No

GPLv3 - GNU General Public License version 3.0
Link with code using a different license: No
Release changes under a different license: No

LGPL - GNU Library or "Le ... t; General Public License
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: No

LGPLv3 - GNU Lesser General Public License
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: No

MIT license
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: Yes

MPL - Mozilla Public License 1.1
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: Limited

CDDL - Common Development and Distribution License
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: Yes

EPL - Eclipse Public License
Link with code using a different license: Yes
Release changes under a different license: No

QPL - Qt Public License
Link with code using a different license: No
Release changes under a different license: No

personally, i hate OSS licenses.

i've seen a few cases where big name manufacturers use linux on their devices, not tell anyone it's linux, and not release any source.

ricoh is one. motorola is another.

i can't say i'm really fond of the license that android falls under either.

i was under the impression that GPL3 was supposed to fix some of these problems, but from what i've heard recently, that might not be the case.

GPLV3 All the way my fine friends,

GPL based for me.

I like licences where people can't take all your work then close the source to rip you off.

Generally MIT or BSD.

Seems a bit hypocritical to produce open code and then demand that people use it how you want, but all in all I do understand why the GPL, etc. exists, so please don't lecture. I understand, I just don't always agree with it.

Quote from bunder9999 :

i've seen a few cases where big name manufacturers use linux on their devices, not tell anyone it's linux, and not release any source.

Oh there's more than a few cases where that happens - the FSF is very much becoming someone you don't want to have sat on you if you or your company fails to release the source (where required).

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Oh there's more than a few cases where that happens - the FSF is very much becoming someone you don't want to have sat on you if you or your company fails to release the source (where required).

Cisco / Linksys comes to mind with the WRT54G ...

I tend to lean towards MIT & BSD but I also like that people are required to share any code based off the GPL licenses.

Some of the code will dual licensed as MIT or BSD, then what ever is chosen here, because i'm going to use it in LFSWorldSDK. I want to community to use those functions everywhere and I don't want the shackles of the GPL to be on those functions.

Those functions will be the timing function & LFS string to HTML / ECMA-48 color with any text encoding that you wish to convert too.

[edit]And a side not for you all:

Quote from Matthias Vance :

Matthias Vance From the Allied Modders Form

People keep bugging each other about the GPL / plugin licenses, so I figured I'd take this issue out of the world once and for all.

It's perfectly legal to not distribute your source code as long as you aren't distributing the compiled binary.

That means, when you are distributing a compiled binary (plugin), you must make the source code available.

That means you can:

• sell a plugin, as long as you make the source code available to the buyer.
  
• modify a plugin for your own server, and don't share changes.
  
• distribute the source code, even if it's a private plugin.

As we are using PHP, source and binary are one and the same, but just because some one writes a plugin does not mean they then have to share back their code to the community. But this would be strongly encouraged.

It should also be noted that if we end up going to GPL route, I will be following these rules to the letter:
Intellectual Property Rules as Per AlliedModders

It should also be noted that plugins will be REQUIRED to be GPL'ed if we go this route. I want everyone to think about what they are voting for. It can drastically effect the community to choice we make this week.

Sounds like you've already made your mind up Dygear.

As with anything you can't always choose by committee. Be that benevolent dictator and rule with an iron fist.

In the instance of an interpreted language, short of someone packing PRISM and some plugins, it's unlikely to be a massive problem at the end of the day.

Quote from the_angry_angel :

Sounds like you've already made your mind up Dygear.

Not at all, but I am worried that people will pick GPL and I'm mulling that over right now in my head. As it was the leader at the time of post, along with the MIT / BSD style of license I had to make sure people knew what they where getting them selfs into.

GPL - GNU Public License or Greedy Programmers License. You decide.

Every license has their perks, ever license as their pit falls. There are some functions that are going to be MIT Licensed no matter what, it's a requirement that I'm imposing on those functions so they can be used by the LFSWorldSDK. Everything else is up to the community.

[Edit]I'm pretty excited that the MIT license is leading the way right now. I think I'll cast my vote on Friday and see where that leads us up-to the run of the end of the Poll.[/Edit]

[Edit]I really want Scawen & Victor to also cast their votes as I wonder what they would choose. I'd love to have this distributed with LFS.[/edit]

I think Greedy Programmers License is unfair. Using GPL or LGPL isn't about being greedy (and greedy how?), it's about making sure the programs you release as open-source stay open-source. I have released my libraries under LGPL, not because I'm greedy, but because I want to make sure that any improvements or changes people make stay within the community. I open-source my programs as I want everyone to benefit from them, and I release them as GPL because I want everyone to benefit from the changes made to them as well. I don't see how that could classify me as a greedy programmer.

I don't like imposing a license requirement on code that uses my code. I prefer my code to self contained, in so far as it wont effect some one else's license or usability based not on the way I implemented (that can always be changed) but based on the way I licensed my code. The GPL can spread like a virus because of this, my code is GPL'ed so your code has to be GPL'ed also. It get's to the point, where everything then has to be GPL'ed so everything can work together.

But we will see what the community wants, if the community want's GPL'ed code, then so be it! PRISM will be GPL'ed.

[Edit]Sorry, I'm quite hungry right now, and my esophagus is burning (Damn acid reflux.) I'll go get something to eat, and I'll just a much better example of what I mean by Greedy. When it comes to the GPL.[/Edit]

Well I like the LGPL license, as it allows anyone to make a closed source program that links to your library, but any changes (bug fixes or features) they add to the library itself need to be made public. That's the license I use and I think it's a happy medium.

Quote from DarkTimes :

Well I like the LGPL license, as it allows anyone to make a closed source program that links to your library, but any changes (bug fixes or features) they add to the library itself need to be made public. That's the license I use and I think it's a happy medium.

And I could not agree more with that point. The LGPL has saved the GPL.

I'm pretty excited right now. MIT is leading the way, and it has greater then 50% of the vote .

Ripnet has not been around, and that's too bad. I'm sure he would vote for Apache, but I'd wonder what other licenses he would vote for ... We are (by the I mean I am) still going though the source code review for version 0.2.0, we have an interval version of 0.1.4, and 0.1.5 should be the release that goes to 0.2.0.

Poll closes in ~28 hours.

MIT license wins witb 9 out of 16 people voting and the only license to get above 56.25%. I'll release PRISM with the MIT license as soon as I get home.