4 ms·
In their FAQ, they mention wanting to keep the changes people make open for now, which is why they chose the GPL. If that's the case and they're not pursuing a
by dangoor 15y ago
In their FAQ, they mention wanting to keep the changes people make open for now, which is why they chose the GPL. If that's the case and they're not pursuing a dual license business strategy, I'd suggest that the Mozilla Public License 2.0 is a better choice. It's very explicit that the files that come in the distribution are the ones for which derivative works need to be under the same license.
If dual license is what they really want, I'm not particularly interested at this stage.
- sciurus 15y agoMPL 2.0 does look like a good fit. "The MPL has been approved as both a free software license (albeit one with a weak copyleft) by the Free Software Foundation and an open-source software license by the Open Source Initiative. The MPL allows covered source code to be mixed with other files under a different, even proprietary license. However, code files licensed under the MPL must remain under the MPL and freely available in source form. This makes the MPL a compromise between the MIT or BSD licenses, which permit all derived works to be relicensed as proprietary, and the GPL, which requires the whole of a derived work, even new components, to remain under the GPL. By allowing proprietary modules in derived projects while requiring core files to remain open source, the MPL is designed to motivate both businesses and the open-source community to help develop core software." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License