Hi,
I am planning to release a new gem.
The licence issue is overwhelming though.
I would like everyone to be able to use the source code, modify and
redistribute it freely.
Also, I wouldn't like to be liable for any claims.
On top of all this it would be nice to get some donations if someone decides
to use it commercially.
Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
Cheers,
Robert
I would like everyone to be able to use the source code, modify and
redistribute it freely.
Excellent.
Also, I wouldn't like to be liable for any claims.
Pretty standard.
On top of all this it would be nice to get some donations if someone decides
to use it commercially.
That's not really a licensing issue. You could explicitly license it
for non-commercial use only, but it's probably better to just ask
nicely and hope people follow through.
Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
MIT/BSD.
Ben
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Robert Wolf <robert.wolf@adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
Or GPL, or public domain (which isn't recognized in some
legislations though AFAIR). Sorry, there's no one true
answer to your question -- you could probably settle with
"Ruby's license" as something "default".
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:40:31AM +0900, Ben Bleything wrote:
> Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
MIT/BSD.
--
---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike@altlinux.ru>
------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 17. Dez 2009, 03:14:33 +0900 schrieb Michael Shigorin:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:40:31AM +0900, Ben Bleything wrote:
> > Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
> MIT/BSD.Or GPL, [...]
Sorry, there's no one true answer to your question [...]
I prefer BSD because it is so short that I can read it to the end
in a reasonable time.
Bertram
--
Bertram Scharpf
Stuttgart, Deutschland/Germany
*
Discover String#notempty? at <http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/step>\.
Bertram Scharpf wrote:
Hi,
> > Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
> MIT/BSD.Or GPL, [...]
Sorry, there's no one true answer to your question [...]I prefer BSD because it is so short that I can read it to the end
in a reasonable time.
Yup. Also, it's not "viral" like the GPL.
Bertram
Best,
Am Donnerstag, 17. Dez 2009, 03:14:33 +0900 schrieb Michael Shigorin:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:40:31AM +0900, Ben Bleything wrote:
--
Marnen Laibow-Koser
http://www.marnen.org
marnen@marnen.org
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
That could be a good or bad thing. I almost wish there was a "viral" license
that was short enough -- though as long as the GPL is, it does actually seem
to be human-readable.
But I prefer BSD for both reasons -- both because I'm no longer as militantly
Free Software as I used to be, and because I don't like any license bigger
than my head.
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 05:21:00 pm Marnen Laibow-Koser wrote:
Bertram Scharpf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 17. Dez 2009, 03:14:33 +0900 schrieb Michael Shigorin:
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:40:31AM +0900, Ben Bleything wrote:
>> > > Do you have any suggestion on the type of licence?
>> >
>> > MIT/BSD.
>>
>> Or GPL, [...]
>> Sorry, there's no one true answer to your question [...]
>
> I prefer BSD because it is so short that I can read it to the end
> in a reasonable time.Yup. Also, it's not "viral" like the GPL.