[TriZPUG] Open-Source Licenses - what do you like to use and why?

[Bradley A. Crittenden]

On Apr 15, 2011, at 14:29 , Josh Johnson wrote:

> I'm on the cusp of releasing a bunch of software that we've developed over the past couple of years here in the blitzen group.
> 
> So I'm at the point where I'm choosing a license.
> 
> I consulted UNC's office of legal council about this, and they said that campus is cool with whatever license we decide to use, as long as it has a 'no implied warranty/non-liability' disclaimer. (not in those exact words, of course :D)
> 
> So, we've got a lot of options.
> 
> I'm just curious what folks in the area are using, have used in the past, and any personal anecdotes regarding how it went over time.
> 
> I'm indifferent as far as virality, restrictions on reuse, providing source, commercialization, etc.
> 
> I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on any licensing strategies you've tried; starting a philosophical debate, not so much. :)

My advice is to first realize that the license is a contract and if you want it to be enforceable it needs to be airtight and tested.  If you are not an IP lawyer you probably should not be writing licenses.  You wouldn't believe how many people attempt to write their own licenses and end up making a big mess of it.

Your subject says "open source licenses" but then the list of things you say you don't care about are contradictory to recognized open source licensing.  Specifically I'd look at the definitions provided by the Open Source Initiative at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd and try to pick one that is approved.

If you are releasing web app code you may want to consider Affero GPL as it requires derivative works to be made available even if they are not distributed.

I hope you'll post again when your work is released.  It is nice that UNC makes it somewhat easy for you.

--Brad