Prev: Why did I Embrace Islam?
Next: Python 3 grammar, function parameters
From: Jake b on 12 Jul 2010 18:00
I'm starting a new python code project. What license do you suggest? I
am searching, but I'm not finding a simple comparison of licenses. So
I don't know which to use. Maybe MIT or Apache or LGPL or BSD?

Are there certain licenses to avoid using because of interaction
problems between libraries using GPL2 / GPL3 / MIT / LGPL. / BSD with
my own?

I want:
1] Pretty much let anyone use it. Users do not have to include source
code, as long as I get credit. (which I think normallly is a textfile
with project url + name?)

2] (if it matters) I will be using different combinations of pyglet,
pygame, wxPython, etc.

3] I want the option to use my own code in something commercial at a later date.

Does #3 complicate things, or is fine when including author info?

The choices for google code projects are:
Apache License 2.0
Eclipse license 1.0
GPLv2
GPLv3
GNU lesser GPL
MIT license
Mozilla Public license 1.1
New BSD License

thanks for advice,
--
ninmonkey
From: geremy condra on 12 Jul 2010 19:03
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Jake b <ninmonkeys(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm starting a new python code project. What license do you suggest? I
> am searching, but I'm not finding a simple comparison of licenses. So
> I don't know which to use. Maybe MIT or Apache or LGPL or BSD?

Fair warning: I like and use the GPL a lot, so I'm biased. Take my
advice with a grain of salt and recognize that while everybody has
some semi-rational basis for the license they choose, in the end the
decision is likely to be made on dogmatic grounds.

> Are there certain licenses to avoid using because of interaction
> problems between libraries using GPL2 / GPL3 / MIT / LGPL. / BSD with
> my own?

Generally, GPL'd code likes GPL'd code and BSD/MIT etc are more
free-form. Depending on what you leverage this may or may not be a
problem for you.

> I want:
> 1] Pretty much let anyone use it. Users do not have to include source
> code, as long as I get credit. (which I think normallly is a textfile
> with project url + name?)

GPL is pretty much out then. CC-BY-* may be the way to go.

> 2] (if it matters) I will be using different combinations of pyglet,
> pygame, wxPython, etc.

Not going to dig through those to find the licenses for you. Be aware
that their choices impact yours.

> 3] I want the option to use my own code in something commercial at a later date.

Not generally an issue. Even GPL lets you sell your stuff.

> Does #3 complicate things, or is fine when including author info?

If you have many contributors it can.

> The choices for google code projects are:
>  Apache License 2.0

Good choice, not my flavor but it does preserve attribution.

>  Eclipse license 1.0

Small license, doesn't give you the same degree of legal muscle that
some others will if it gets violated.

>  GPLv2
>  GPLv3

Both out on the source-not-required part. Personally, I like them (and
the Artistic License) for exactly that reason.

>  GNU lesser GPL

Fewer restrictions on linking, etc, but probably not what I would
recommend here.

>  MIT license

Good choice, well understood and widely used. Note that attribution is
not preserved, although copyright is. That may or may not be enough
for you.

>  Mozilla Public license 1.1

I'd avoid it, same caveats for the eclipse license and few obvious advantages.

>  New BSD License

Also a good choice, same caveat as the X11 license.

Geremy Condra
From: Ben Finney on 12 Jul 2010 19:28
Jake b <ninmonkeys(a)gmail.com> writes:

> I want:
> 1] Pretty much let anyone use it. Users do not have to include source
> code, as long as I get credit. (which I think normallly is a textfile
> with project url + name?)

The simplest effective license that requires nothing more that
attribution is “under the terms of the Expat license”
<URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>.

The terms are effectively the same as some of the MIT/X11 licenses, but:

* It's even shorter and simpler, while still being widely regarded as
effective.

* The name “Expat license” is far less ambiguous, because MIT have
released X11 under several different licenses, not all of them free.

> 2] (if it matters) I will be using different combinations of pyglet,
> pygame, wxPython, etc.

You'll need to check the license terms on anything that you combine your
work with, to see what the effective combination of terms will be.

> 3] I want the option to use my own code in something commercial at a
> later date.

All free software licenses are commercial licenses, by definition.
Preventing selling the work, or other commercial use, would make the
license terms non-free. So if you choose any free software license this
isn't a problem.

> Does #3 complicate things, or is fine when including author info?

You may be wanting to talk about making the work non-free (proprietary),
in which case you're on your own :-)

--
\ “My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I |
`\ may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not |
_o__) believe it.” —Thomas Edison |
Ben Finney
From: Steven D'Aprano on 12 Jul 2010 19:49
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:00:22 -0500, Jake b wrote:

> I'm starting a new python code project. What license do you suggest? I
> am searching, but I'm not finding a simple comparison of licenses. So I
> don't know which to use. Maybe MIT or Apache or LGPL or BSD?

http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html


--
Steven
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Why did I Embrace Islam?
Next: Python 3 grammar, function parameters