Best Open Source License

[Lost User]

Thank you. It is refreshing to meet someone who doesn't believe their code is Scripture.

[Mladen Jankovic]

Ignorance is a bliss sometimes.

more from me | GALex: C++ Library for Advanced Genetic Algorithms

[H Brydon]

I use the popular license that is associated with the distribution medium. For example, if I post on CodeProject, I use the CPOL. If elsewhere, I use one of their license choices. I am amused by and sympathetic to the Don't Be A Dick (DBAD)[^] license for my own distribution/web page, although I have to admit I haven't used it yet.

-- Harvey

[Mladen Jankovic]

H.Brydon wrote:

I am amused by and sympathetic to the Don't Be A Dick (DBAD)

Being 'funny' with license does no good to anyone. Ever heard about the law of unintended consequences? Case in point

more from me | GALex: C++ Library for Advanced Genetic Algorithms

[Joe Woodbury]

I like the ZLib license. It's easy and straightforward and not pretentious.

[Mark_Wallace]

Don't forget an "If it ****s anything up, it's your fault for trusting it" clause.

I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!

[Gary Wheeler]

Agreed. I refuse to use anything covered by the GPL. Having to suck Stallman's tit just because I want to make a profit doesn't appeal.

Software Zen: delete this;

[RafagaX]

I personally like the MIT/X11 license, because it resumes to do pretty much whatever you want with it. GPL is a nuisance for commercial projects, so I try to avoid GPL licensed projects or solutions.

CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...

[Joe DF]

I just usually use the MIT License ... :) Satisfies me for almost anything! :D

[Chad3F]

I use BSD for my own original projects as it is minimal and requires those using my code to not pretend they did all the work themselves (beyond stopping that, the credit attribution is of limited value). I will contribute to GPL/LGPL (and other) projects sometimes and accept their license.. but since it is normally just modifying existing code, it is not like there is a lot of "me" in it anyway. In these cases transferring the copyright ownership of my small change to the project itself would probably be acceptable too (so they don't need to ask me if license changes are made later.. e.g. GPL -> LGPL). I find that too many open source projects don't account for this issue (albeit copyright transfer, co-ownership, or even simply "acceptable [future] licenses"). Then years later after dozens, hundreds, or thousands of developers have contributed (some long gone from the project) if their is a desire to change the license it usually ends up being too much trouble because they need to get permission from all relevant contributors. I am looking at having an extension of the BSD (or maybe any free) license that limits the restrictions that companies often place on end-users (in the most extreme scenario, that EULA's are not allowed at all). Beyond that, they can do what they want (including keep their own code private).