I'd like to relicense my open source project under a non-viral GPL incompatible license.
Which license should I choose?
+1
A:
Erm, that would just make you an anti-GPL zealot. Do you really really want to paint yourself that way?
Ignore them, and pick a license what suits your ideology.
freespace
2009-07-30 08:42:40
The Apache license is not compatible with GPLv2, but it is compatible with GPLv3 (one of the targets of GPLv3 was to gain compatibility with the Apache license).
J. Pablo Fernández
2009-07-30 08:51:07
Jon, this is good info, but it is not answering the question, Apache V2 is compatible with GPL v3, Apache 1.1 and 1.0 are not.
Sam Saffron
2009-07-30 08:53:02
I'll edit the answer to explain that part. Hopefully the OP *actually* has more interesting and positive criteria than "GPL incompatible"...
Jon Skeet
2009-07-30 08:59:19
From the question, I gathered that he **HATES** evil GPL, and does not want anything to do with it, he does not want to help out with GPL open source projects. I think that position is flawed on many levels and completely against the spirit of open source. But to each his own.
Sam Saffron
2009-07-30 09:03:07
A:
Although this is great flamebait, I'll refrain from joining that debate. Also, I'm no zealot, but you should consider that many developers could be turned away from your project, if it uses an obscure license.
Perhaps you should state your intentions with the licensing scheme more clearly, as your current phrasing is somewhat non-constructive.
Steen
2009-07-30 08:45:03
+7
A:
The Simplified BSD License is, IMHO, the best way to go. The license is both simple and permissive:
Copyright (C) <year>, <copyright holder>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Michael Aaron Safyan
2009-07-30 08:45:46
Yes. But the reason why GPL is obnoxious is because it makes the software virtually unusable (unless all the work you are doing is for free). You don't want to be obnoxious, too, do you?
Michael Aaron Safyan
2009-07-30 21:07:08
+2
A:
There is a full list on the GNU website.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
You could use MPL or MS-PL or the BSD license or Apache v1/1.1. Keep in mind that BSD and Apache licenses have revised versions (the ones commonly used) which are compatible with particular versions of the GPL.
Sam Saffron
2009-07-30 08:50:54
Note: I personally use GPL in some of my open source project, I use lots of GPL software and have no religious beliefs that would stop me from using GPL software. Copyleft can be a pain in the behind sometimes. Nonetheless, keep in mind, that people writing GPL software are programmers just like you that are not trying to destroy the world.
Sam Saffron
2009-07-30 09:15:00
@Sam Saffron, no one is saying that GPL software programmers are evil. If you write code, you can license it however you like. That said, it is absurd that the term "free" is applied to software licensed under the GPL, given the restrictiveness of that license. Using the GPL reduces the usefulness of the software and, as a result, may reduce the interest in collaborating on that software. IMHO, there is no reason to license one's own software under GPL if one can release it under LGPL. Of course, if one is using a GPL library, then one has no choice.
Michael Aaron Safyan
2009-07-30 23:17:00
@Michael, GPL is not the only viral license, creative commons have a few, MS have a MS-RL and so on. To choose a license that is, on purpose, non-compatible with the GPL (yet still compatible with other viral licenses) is a little odd.
Sam Saffron
2009-07-30 23:24:01
Note that djb has placed some (most?), but not all of his software into the public domain.
Mark Johnson
2009-08-04 18:02:55