4 ms·

Why did he cave in to all the license talk and release it as BSD ? If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why not leave the li

Why did he cave in to all the license talk and release it as BSD ? If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why not leave the license to GPL and be done with it ?

grandalf 16y ago
Or better yet MIT
- KirinDave 16y ago
  From the perspective of someone releasing software, the BSD license is almost always more desirable. It's basically the MIT license with the added restriction that someone can't use your name without your permission. Believe me, it can and does happen. Especially when you consult, people may try to use your hard-earned prestige to puff up their product's perceived value.
  - ionfish 16y ago
    Agreed. This is precisely the reason I release most of my code under the BSD license. I'm happy for other people to use my code, modify it to suit their needs, and embed it in larger projects with more restrictive licenses, but I emphatically do not want them putting my name on it.
  - zokier 16y ago
    I prefer zlib license[1] just because of that. I'm fine with other people using my code. But keep my name clean. It also also haves quite simple and easy to understand language and no extraneous capitals. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
    - KirinDave 16y ago
      I don't mean to be contentious, but it doesn't seem to include the clause the BSD license includes. From the BSD license: “Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.” I don't think the zlib license has an equivalent restriction? I don't see anything that protects the author or the organization funding the author from misrepresentation. To give a clear example of what this clause presents, I have a friend who wrote a open-sourced library that a company used a few years ago. The founder of that company ran around using his name “Lots of people are excited about our product! We've got a lot of software engineers doing pro-bono work for it, such as <FRIENDNAME>.” Obviously, this is disingenuous and potentially damaging to someone's representation, but it's not strictly forbidden by most licenses. What's nice about having your license explicitly forbid this practice is that if the user does this, they void the license and it is relatively easy to get them to stop using your library and really firmly disassociate yourself with the organization, should you choose to.
jrockway 16y ago
If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why not leave the license to GPL and be done with it ? Be reasonable. Who would read a blog post about that?
zedshaw 16y ago
I decided that since I haven't worked on Lamson for a while, and I'm kind of bored with it, that I'd rather have people use it without having to constantly bug me about the GPL. If you think about it from a marketing perspective, trying to "sell" GPL software to Python is like trying to sell Internet Explorer to a Linux long beard. Not only do they not want it, but they hate it and will look for anyway around it. I got another project I'm working on that is going to come out AGPL soon and I'll see how that goes.
- jnoller 16y ago
  You are right; much of the python community dislikes the GPL (myself included) but I don't know of widespread "how the hell do we get around it" disease. Most of us just see GPLed code, shrug, and move on. You seem to be making it out like people within the community are hell bent on screwing people who release software into the wild as open source, which bothers me a bit.

Why did he cave in to all the license talk and release it as BSD ? If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why not leave the license to GPL and be done with it ?

grandalf 16y ago

Or better yet MIT

KirinDave 16y ago
From the perspective of someone releasing software, the BSD license is almost always more desirable. It's basically the MIT license with the added restriction that someone can't use your name without your permission. Believe me, it can and does happen. Especially when you consult, people may try to use your hard-earned prestige to puff up their product's perceived value.
- ionfish 16y ago
  Agreed. This is precisely the reason I release most of my code under the BSD license. I'm happy for other people to use my code, modify it to suit their needs, and embed it in larger projects with more restrictive licenses, but I emphatically do not want them putting my name on it.
- zokier 16y ago
  I prefer zlib license[1] just because of that. I'm fine with other people using my code. But keep my name clean. It also also haves quite simple and easy to understand language and no extraneous capitals. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
  - KirinDave 16y ago
    I don't mean to be contentious, but it doesn't seem to include the clause the BSD license includes. From the BSD license: “Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.” I don't think the zlib license has an equivalent restriction? I don't see anything that protects the author or the organization funding the author from misrepresentation. To give a clear example of what this clause presents, I have a friend who wrote a open-sourced library that a company used a few years ago. The founder of that company ran around using his name “Lots of people are excited about our product! We've got a lot of software engineers doing pro-bono work for it, such as <FRIENDNAME>.” Obviously, this is disingenuous and potentially damaging to someone's representation, but it's not strictly forbidden by most licenses. What's nice about having your license explicitly forbid this practice is that if the user does this, they void the license and it is relatively easy to get them to stop using your library and really firmly disassociate yourself with the organization, should you choose to.

jrockway 16y ago

If he really doesn't care and has now some more interesting C++ project why not leave the license to GPL and be done with it ? Be reasonable. Who would read a blog post about that?

zedshaw 16y ago

I decided that since I haven't worked on Lamson for a while, and I'm kind of bored with it, that I'd rather have people use it without having to constantly bug me about the GPL. If you think about it from a marketing perspective, trying to "sell" GPL software to Python is like trying to sell Internet Explorer to a Linux long beard. Not only do they not want it, but they hate it and will look for anyway around it. I got another project I'm working on that is going to come out AGPL soon and I'll see how that goes.

jnoller 16y ago
You are right; much of the python community dislikes the GPL (myself included) but I don't know of widespread "how the hell do we get around it" disease. Most of us just see GPLed code, shrug, and move on. You seem to be making it out like people within the community are hell bent on screwing people who release software into the wild as open source, which bothers me a bit.