3 ms·

If you want to use it now I can slap on whatever license you'd like, it's just a first test so I haven't thought about the "real thing" yet.

• reitanqild 9y ago
  Not OP but personally I'd prefer MIT or Apache if you want it to be as useful as possible for as many people as possible. If you intend to make money from license sales you could go with APGL/Commercial dual license. (That will most likely make me stay away until I can justify a commercial license.)
  • falcolas 9y ago
    I'd caution the author against MIT style licenses for such an early release of a text editor; it's easier to loosen restrictions than it is to add them. Especially for an editor, having a GPL-esque license wouldn't have much practical impact on its use, aside from making it harder to embed and re-release it (which could be considered a feature of choosing that license). The sole exception I can think of is plug-ins, but that would depend on the implementation.
    • nerdponx 9y ago
      What happens if I write a text editor under GPL, then I want to spin off some backend components under Apache2 or MIT or LGPL?
      • falcolas 9y ago
        If it's all your code? Nothing. You own the copyright, therefor you can re-release the code under any license you want. The only problem is that existing releases will remain under their original terms of release. For example, if you create a release with MIT, that release will remain available under the MIT licensing terms until your copyright of that code expires. IANAL and all that, of course.