DonationCoder.com Software > JGPaiva's GridMove and Ahk Tools
GridMove at github
jgpaiva:
Source repository @ GitHub
-f0dder (February 22, 2013, 06:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Good idea, done. Thanks!
Jibz:
I am not a license expert, but it is my understanding that CC licenses are generally aimed more at "works of art" like text, music, images, etc., and not software. You might want to consider picking a software license instead.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?
We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software. Furthermore, our licenses are not compatible with the GPL, the most frequently used free software license.
--- End quote ---
On a personal note I would probably not choose GPL, but that has been discussed extensively on these forums already :-[.
jgpaiva:
I am not a license expert, but it is my understanding that CC licenses are generally aimed more at "works of art" like text, music, images, etc., and not software. You might want to consider picking a software license instead.
(..)
On a personal note I would probably not choose GPL, but that has been discussed extensively on these forums already :-[.
-Jibz (February 23, 2013, 03:07 AM)
--- End quote ---
I understand that. I've looked at it for a bit, but couldn't find anything that compares to the CC license I'm "using" now and just gave up. Also, like you, I'm not a big fan of GPL, and it looks like it's sort of the standard these days.
f0dder:
Also, like you, I'm not a big fan of GPL, and it looks like it's sort of the standard these days.-jgpaiva (February 23, 2013, 05:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
It's been so for ages, and that's probably the reason so many people GPL-license their things - not because they've made a conscious choice and understand the various licenses, but because GPL is the default fallback... for good and for worse.
I wonder if the FSF would answer a license-question email along the lines of "ohaithar, you haz real software license comparable to CC-BY-NC-SA, canhazpzlkthx?" :-)
Jibz:
I understand that. I've looked at it for a bit, but couldn't find anything that compares to the CC license I'm "using" now and just gave up. Also, like you, I'm not a big fan of GPL, and it looks like it's sort of the standard these days.
-jgpaiva (February 23, 2013, 05:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, I had much the same problem when I was changing some projects from commercial to free or open source. As I understand it, having a non-commercial requirement means it is not strictly speaking open source, at least by the OSI's definition.
I ended up using the more permissive open source licenses for most stuff, because I figured I wasn't going to make any money from it anyway, so it might as well be as easy for others to use as possible.
But if I were to release something as open source, while still retaining the ability to sell it, I would probably consider the GPL. Even though I object to the way it makes it hard for people to use the code in free (but not GPL) software, the GPL has, in a way, ended up being the most commercial of the open source licenses; if you want to make money selling your open source project, dual-license it under the GPL to get all the benefits of open source, while making it near impossible for companies to use it without buying a separate license from you.
Btw, I think it's great you have released the source and put it on GitHub, so please do not take my comments as being negative, I just find this licensing stuff interesting in a kind of masochistic manner ;D.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version