4 ms·
Not just an image format, everything you want to become widely adopted and standardized should refrain from using the GPL, even the FSF[1] recommends using the
by Aldo_MX 11y ago
Not just an image format, everything you want to become widely adopted and standardized should refrain from using the GPL, even the FSF[1] recommends using the Apache License in this specific case.
Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted
standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM
(which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of
the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more
good than a copyleft on the project's code would do.
In these special situations, we recommend the Apache License 2.0.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
- bloody_pretzels 11y agoNote that the Apache License isn't compatible with GPLv2. If you don't make use of any patents use BSD/MIT/ISC instead. Sadly there isn't a real alternative permissive license with a patent clause. There is a license called COIL[1], but it hasn't seen much adoption yet. [1] http://coil.apotheon.org/ http://coil.apotheon.org/
- Aldo_MX 11y agoNothing that a dual license GPL/APL wouldn't solve.