next »

[Martin 2BAM]

I've search the forums and found topics on Business and Technical but couldn't find what I was looking for. I'm inclined to ask in Technical.

I want to find a standarized license to:

• Share the library source code for free (no profit)
• Allow applications of any kind (commercial or not, open or closed)
• Require derivative work/modifications to the library itself be shared under same license (i.e. open/no profit)
  
• Not have any liability.

In a nutshell: All enhancements should return to the public (open), any use is unrestricted.

LGPL came to mind but I don't want to enforce dynamic linking or having to include exceptions for embedded systems.
I also do not want to use MIT because I want the modifications/enhancements to be shared to the public for free.
MPL makes a good compromise for what I've read.

What do you believe is best? Not only for licensing options but you can also challenge my way of thinking.

Thanks!

[kamac]

LGPL with adnotation that lets others statically link the library.


It looks like this:

YourSoftware makes use of the LGPL v3 with the following exception:

As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License, you may use any file of this software library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Lesser General Public License.

[Sik]

Look at FLTK, it does pretty much what you want.
http://www.fltk.org/articles.php?L364+I0+TFAQ+P1+Q

Basically, it's LGPL, but it allows static linking if you don't modify the library.

[Martin 2BAM]

Thanks for the replies! Under following investigation I found:

A modified license is not the same license!

While you have fairly amazing ability to specify your own licensing terms, and could in essence say "you can distribute this as per the GPL, but you need to put my name in your credits and pay me 1% of any revenue you generate", any time you do so you are create a new license based on someone else's work. This means that you're NOT using the MPL or the LGPL, you're using a new "<your name> license".

What that means is that you probably won't get any help from your original license's author if you need to defend your interpretation of the license inside of a courtroom, and it's entirely possible that they might file suit to say that THEIR version should apply and not yours.

( http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/221375 )

and

The LGPL is typically used for libraries, yet Section 4 of the LGPL creates concern with class inheritance by placing heavy restrictions on the suitability of object-oriented classes in LGPL software being inherited by non-LGPL code.

( http://www.gatsbymedia.net/development-articles/why-we-use-the-mpl )

to be very convincing. I'm sold! I'm using MPL.

Thanks and sorry for the trouble.