4 ms·

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.

Or better yet MIT

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.