4 ms·
It isn't really clear from the article under what license the source is available. For instance, is it using a common Free Software license such as GPL or a BSD
by vog 14y ago
It isn't really clear from the article under what license the source is available. For instance, is it using a common Free Software license such as GPL or a BSD-like one, such that interesting parties can actually do something with it? That would be much more consumer friendly than the mere permission to have a look at it.
- jckay 14y agoWow. This is an amazing point, and quite honestly i am sorry for not including it. My intent is to have people DO SOMETHING WITH IT. Not just to look at it. I want people to very much do anything they find of value with it. Would that be more GPL or BSD? I will update the post...
- M4v3R 14y agoGo with BSD if you want people to do something with it. Unless you don't want for people to make closed source apps with it, then go with GPL.
- jckay 14y agoPost Updated to reflect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses Thanks for pointing this out guys. JK
- vog 14y agoNote that there are 2 common variants of the BSD license: "2-clause" and "3-clause". Don't forget to specify which one you mean. I'm using the ISC license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license) which is equivalent to the 2-clause BSD, but does so with fewer and simpler words. Also, the MIT license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license) is quite popular. It is also equivalent to the 2-clause BSD, but not quite as short as the more modern ISC license.