Open Source Licenses: LGPL vs. Creative Commons

Question

I'm writing a .NET library for the Stack Overflow pre-alpha API. After uploading some early code to a new project over at Google Code, I set the license info to GPL and added the appropriate license disclaimers to the code files. After posting an announcement on Meta, though, Kevin Montrose told me that LGPL is better. I have also looked at this question for info on the differences between GPL and LGPL.

From what I understand, LGPL allows any use (commercial or not) as long as it complies with the LGPL. However, I would also like any uses of the library to have attribution to the project's web site, to encourage the repetition of the open source lifecycle.

However, I have now hit upon a dilemna: should I license the project with LGPL, as well as an added clause (not that I know how to word said clause - I don't even know where it belongs in the license info) that requires the afforementioned attribution, or should I use a Creative Commons license that has attribution built in?

I have a feeling that LGPL and Creative Commons are two very different things, because I believe that Google Code says that CC is a content license. Does this apply here?

Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

I think you should look at the BSD or MIT licenses. LGPL is for libraries and has unintended consequences in some uses. CC is definitely not intended for software.

Answer 2

You do get attribution (in most cases) if you use LGPL -- cfr the license, specifically under point 3:

provided that, if the incorporated material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates (ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following: a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License.

Answer 3

It sounds like you might want something more like the BSD license. That will give you the opportunity to claim/give credit in the copyright line.

You should be aware that the LGPL creates obligations that can cause problems for closed source applications. In particular, the LGPL requires that anyone who uses the library either use dynamic linking or make sure people can modify the LGPL portion of the software. The upside of LGPL is that it protects modifications to the LGPL code itself. If you aren't specifically worried about that, I would encourage you to look at other licenses.

Answer 4

FSF has a nice page in which they describe why you should not use LGPL. Of course if your goals are the same as the ones of FSF. You should think carefully about what you'd like to "give", and what you don't (which IMHO is not completely clear from your question).

Note that often people have strong feelings about licensing, and they think that their choice is best, whereas the ones of others are wrong, so you might easily end up with "do this" kind of recommendations.

I suggest that your read both FSF and OSI pages describing various licensing options, so you can clarify what you really want. Then, picking your license will be obvious.