Picking a license

[Ed Keith]

--- On Thu, 5/13/10, Carl Banks <pavlovevidence at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> The thing you GPL fanbois refuse to understand or accept is
> that, in
> the real world, a person or company who doesn't want to
> open source
> their "derivative work" will only rarely be forced to by
> the GPL.
> They'll work around it instead, vast majority of the
> time.  They
> could:
> 
> 1. Derive their work from a project with a license that
> grants the
> user more freedom
> 2. Reimplment the functionality seperately (*cough*
> PySide)
> 3. Ignore the license

I think you have over looked the most common, keep the software in house and not let anyone else use it. This way you are in full compliance with the GPL. If you let someone else use the software that you need to talk to a lawyer, or GPL your software.

> 
> And no, a small number of anecdotal counterexamples is not
> any strong
> evidence to the contrary.
> 
> On the other hand, those who intended to release their work
> as open
> source are going to do it even if the license is
> permissive.  The way
> some of you GPL fanbois talk you'd think the MIT license
> prohibitied
> open source derivatives.

If I use MIT licensed code, I can give someone else access to the program with out binding them to the legal restrictions of the GPL. 

    -EdK

Ed Keith
e_d_k at yahoo.com

Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com