4 ms·

Thanks, that's the sort of info I'm looking for. I don't want to make the use restrictive but I'd like to prevent someone else from claiming it and then preven

Thanks, that's the sort of info I'm looking for. I don't want to make the use restrictive but I'd like to prevent someone else from claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future.

jamaicahest 16y ago
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses might be worth considering, http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-c... provides a decent comparison
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  The comparison you mentioned is dangerous, because it makes a huge mistake: > if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it No, no, no and NO. The obligation of licensing your program with the GPL only triggers upon distribution. As long as you keep the program for yourself, you don't have to share anything. Some people chose the BSD licence because they believe this fallacy. Other people say the GPL isn't really free precisely because they believe this fallacy. It's about the 5th time I scream that all over HN. Please pay attention.
_delirium 16y ago
Which kind of license you should pick depends on what exactly you mean by "claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future". The two main styles of licensing are: * Permissive (BSD-style, MIT-style): Anyone can use your code for any purpose, including in proprietary products, but they must retain the copyright notice. * Copyleft (GPL): Anyone can use your code, on the condition that any software they use it in gives the same freedom to reusers. Which you should choose depends on what you'd consider fair/unfair reuse of your code. For example, if Microsoft used an adapted version of your code in the next version of Excel, would you consider that a great thing, and be happy to see your code out there, or would you consider it a betrayal of your intent for someone to adapt a version of your code and then keep the adaptation closed-source?
- jasongullickson 16y ago
  I'm OK with the code being used in a commercial product so long as that doesn't prohibit others from using it as well (in other words, I wouldn't want Microsoft to somehow copyright a function my code provides that would get anyone else who uses that function sued). Don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a possibility but I'd like to save others the trouble.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    That shouldn't be a problem with pretty much any option. At worse, Microsoft (or whoever) can make an improved version of your code that they copyright, but they couldn't copyright the original version that you released in a way that would prevent others from using it. The biggest difference between licenses is whether you care about those derived works: if someone improved your code, should that improved code also have to stay open source, or is it okay if someone takes the improved version closed-source? If you want to ensure that any improved versions stay open too, then copyleft licenses (the GPL is the main one) are the way to go. If you don't care about that, and only care that the original stays open, then any permissive open-source license is fine ("BSD-style" licensing).
    - jasongullickson 16y ago
      Excellent, then it looks like I guessed right :) Thank-you for taking the time to lay out the differences.

Thanks, that's the sort of info I'm looking for. I don't want to make the use restrictive but I'd like to prevent someone else from claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future.

jamaicahest 16y ago

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses might be worth considering, http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-comparison-ever.html http://opendevice.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-gnu-gpl-vs-bsd-c... provides a decent comparison

loup-vaillant 16y ago
The comparison you mentioned is dangerous, because it makes a huge mistake: > if you choose to copy and paste GPL code into your own program you have to share it No, no, no and NO. The obligation of licensing your program with the GPL only triggers upon distribution. As long as you keep the program for yourself, you don't have to share anything. Some people chose the BSD licence because they believe this fallacy. Other people say the GPL isn't really free precisely because they believe this fallacy. It's about the 5th time I scream that all over HN. Please pay attention.

_delirium 16y ago

Which kind of license you should pick depends on what exactly you mean by "claiming it and then preventing others from using it in the future". The two main styles of licensing are: * Permissive (BSD-style, MIT-style): Anyone can use your code for any purpose, including in proprietary products, but they must retain the copyright notice. * Copyleft (GPL): Anyone can use your code, on the condition that any software they use it in gives the same freedom to reusers. Which you should choose depends on what you'd consider fair/unfair reuse of your code. For example, if Microsoft used an adapted version of your code in the next version of Excel, would you consider that a great thing, and be happy to see your code out there, or would you consider it a betrayal of your intent for someone to adapt a version of your code and then keep the adaptation closed-source?

jasongullickson 16y ago
I'm OK with the code being used in a commercial product so long as that doesn't prohibit others from using it as well (in other words, I wouldn't want Microsoft to somehow copyright a function my code provides that would get anyone else who uses that function sued). Don't get me wrong, I don't see this as a possibility but I'd like to save others the trouble.
- _delirium 16y ago
  That shouldn't be a problem with pretty much any option. At worse, Microsoft (or whoever) can make an improved version of your code that they copyright, but they couldn't copyright the original version that you released in a way that would prevent others from using it. The biggest difference between licenses is whether you care about those derived works: if someone improved your code, should that improved code also have to stay open source, or is it okay if someone takes the improved version closed-source? If you want to ensure that any improved versions stay open too, then copyleft licenses (the GPL is the main one) are the way to go. If you don't care about that, and only care that the original stays open, then any permissive open-source license is fine ("BSD-style" licensing).
  - jasongullickson 16y ago
    Excellent, then it looks like I guessed right :) Thank-you for taking the time to lay out the differences.