I want to publish all my projects (mostly small utility software) on github (yes I know) under my real name.
Should I go with GPL, MIT or BSD?
I mean, I'd want other people to work on/fork it if they want, but rather not have other people make money off my work. On the other hand I don't wanna seem like a st4llman basement dweller.
What should I do?
Other urls found in this thread:
cvsweb.openbsd.org
myredditnudes.com
twitter.com
The GPL specifically allows others to make money with your program, they just have to give all users the freedom you gave them.
MIT and BSD are great if you get funded by some enterprise that will use your work in proprietary form.
You don't, so only GPL resides as non-stupid choice.
you can release it under multiple ones, a dual license. you won't seem like a basement dweller with the gpl considering that 90% of networking hardware you buy nowadays comes with a gpl insert. gpl has won, like it or not, and the rest is mainly vocal contrarian dropouts angry with everyone because they are angry with themselves because they couldn't let the contrarian shit go and their career never even started.
For user freedom pick GPL3. For corporate freedom pick BSD.
ok first of all there's almost zero chance anybody is going to make money off of your work, regardless of license.
if you're going to pick the GPL make sure it's for practical and ideological reasons. namely, ensuring that whoever makes improvements to your code is obligated to return them to you, and that no copy of your software will be distributed in a manner that does not respect user freedom.
you should read the MIT and BSD 3/4 clauses licenses at least. they have minor but important differences.
Why do people even prefer MIT/BSD then? And why do people get called F0SS nerds for going with GPL?
GPL locks you into FOSS.
It's not possible to fork and then go closed source.
ISC License is the way to go imo.
It's based on 2-term BSD license but simplified thanks to Berne.
cvsweb.openbsd.org
Chances are though that your work is so insignificant that people will just re-write it so they don't have to give credit.
Then you might as well go MIT.
MIT/BSD allow others to license your code as proprietary, so that they don't have to share improvements with you or anyone else. They can use code that you wrote to subjugate others.
Actually, I have one subtitle creation software that has features that are only found in expensive (>$10) software, so that's the main one is be afraid of (it's not perfect by any means though.)
You (and some others) have convinced me, I'll go with GPL3. Unless LGPL seems better (I haven't looked that one yet)
Because with MIT/BSD you give others the freedom to to use your code pretty much as they want, including turning it into proprietary code. I want people to use whatever shit I release under MIT/BSD licences. If that means that they add it into their proprietary shit or make a new proprietary fork out of it they're free to do so.
For software which you truly believe have a future has an INDEPENDENT piece of software then GPL2 is probably the best choice. For smallish software that you don't really care about you should use an MIT license. For very small code snippets which you really don't care about I recommend a 'beersoftware license'.
Remember that GPL and other copyleft licenses spread like a cancer and actually limit the options for future maintainers and users, that's why you should only use it when you plan on continuously developing the software.
GPLv2 is the best choice but just read them and decide for yourself desu senpai they arent that long or complicated.
>will use your work in proprietary form.
No.
>MIT/BSD allow others to license your code as proprietary
No.
>including turning it into proprietary code
No.
>add it into their proprietary shit
Yes.
> make a new proprietary fork
No.
I'm curious, if I write a library and publish in GPL2/3 and then go on to create a project that uses that library and publish as MIT? Is there anything to stop me if I'm the sole author of both anyway?
So you're saying GPL devs are paranoid basement dwellers?
Choose any of them but GPL.
GPL is cancer today.
Guys guys guys.
None of you have even suggested the obvious?
Use your heads and accept the freedom dictated in the first letter of each sentence.
GPL
>your project will never ever make you money
BSD
>you have the opportunity to get picked up by a software firm and make the big bucks
>Is there anything to stop me if I'm the sole author of both anyway?
Yes but the GPL code will still be out there as GPL, and you don't have the right to change contributions to BSD.
>opportunity
hat's like saying "go work as a slave in a mine in africa, there's the chance you will get married with the owner's daughter"
OP, go GPL.
Probably, especially if they use GPL for small or too specific object project which there will be 100% not interesting to any single corporation(even small).
Second option is big company which use GPL for patent trolling because "copyleft" in the legal norm same thing as copyright©.
not everyone is a disgusting neet that codes free software in their mom's basement
some of us are trying to get paid, I don't give a fuck if its proprietary
OP again, I read about GPL2 and 3 and 3 seems better. It just an improvement on v2 basically.
then don't release the source and sell it, you cretin. No one forces you to go open source.
Public domain is the only true freedom.
If you wanna get paid you shouldn't open source it in the first place. Just like most people who sell their $1-5 dollar programs do.
So rms is right in saying they are shitty open software licenses
>It's not possible to fork and then go closed source.
Nvidia don't give a shit.
Go for the GPL so if you see people make money from your software, take it back from them and sell it too
>have million LOC codebase
>use a single GPL library under 10k LOC
>have to license your entire codebase under GPL and release it's sourcecode if you distribute your application
Corporations don't want their codebase to be "infected" because of some trivial unimportant library that they could easily reimplement which is going to happen when you license your library under GPL.
A proprietary application where 5% of the code is licensed under an open source license is still better than an application with 100% proprietary code.
GPL prevents this. It's all or nothing.
With MIT or BSD the benefit of using a library can be passed on to the consumers through cost savings, faster release cylces, faster time to market, etc. Libraries improve as more bugs and edge cases are found. If nobody uses the library because of licensing reasons then it simply won't improve as quickly.
For an end user facing application it's okay if you intended to release the source code anyway but for libraries it's utter garbage.
You're the author you don't have to do jackshit. You could publish your own GPL'd code in a proprietary project and tell everyone to fuck off if they bother you about it.
>get paid
>$1-5 dollar
High standards. If you want to earn money don't do it in one man show as lottery gives you higher chance for that money. Another flappy bird wouldn't be funny in 2017.
>go GPL
That's like saying "go work as a slave in a mine in africa, then you can start your own mine and if you're lucky you will get your own slave"
Libraries and other stuff that will be incorporated into other projects I would go with ISC/BSD/MIT or a weak copyleft like MPL2.0
If you're making your own software and you want people to contribute to your project go with a stronger copyleft license like GPLv2 or GPLv3. ISC/BSD/MIT will not compel authors of derivative works to contribute back.
The thing with copyleft licenses is you get stuck in a legally questionable area the moment you decide you want to re-license your code. You should think long and hard about whether you really want a strong license like GPLv2 or 3 because they're hard to remove if you change your mind later on.
>create useful library in MIT/BSD
>somebody uses it and makes a useful application with it
>sells the proprietary application
>create useful library in GPL
>somebody uses it and makes an application
>end users don't use it because the semi-proprietary application is superior
In the first case the coproration aren't making money off of your work. The end users are not paying for the library. They are paying for the added value of the proprietary application. If it didn't add any value then how could something that costs money win against something that is free?
If the library did 90% of the work then why can't you do 10% of the remaining work to kill their product? Turns out your library didn't do 90% of the work. It did far less than that.
>implying LGPL doesn't exist.
Also
>2013+3
>using proprietary software
>>MIT/BSD allow others to license your code as proprietary
>No
You don't know shit.
Neither MIT nor BSD require you to distribute the source along with the binary.
They only require you to distribute the license file (the copyright line and the conditions).
Meaning you can distribute proprietary binaries, sell them for an arm and a leg, or put them up your ass as long as you include the license file with the binary.
You can also append your own proprietary license to them as long as the original license is provided. BSD/MIT/ISC/etc don't give a fuck as long as you keep the original license attached.