«

What's the best.

Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
proprietory code (to produce an overall product).

I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.

The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
proprietory code.


--
Duncan.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:07:58 +1300
Dave Doe <> wrote:

> What's the best.
>
> Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still
> around)? The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular
> combining with proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>
> I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>
> The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible
> with the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they
> want - regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with
> other proprietory code.
>
Hi
Is "WTFPL - Do What The F@#k You Want To Public License"
Check out libcaca...

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.32.24-0.2-default
up 4 days 14:28, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.15, 0.10
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 260.19.21

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:07:58 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:

> What's the best.
>
> Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>
> I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>
> The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> proprietory code.

The GPL is the best license for preserving the freedom of your code.
Users can do what they like with it provided they don't combine it with
code under a different license.

If you want to allow other developers to take your code and use it as if
their it is their own for their own profit then release it under the BSD
license.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

In article <who->,
mer, whoisthis says...
>
> In article <>,
> Dave Doe <> wrote:
>
> > What's the best.
> >
> > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
> >
> > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
> >
> > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> > proprietory code.
>
> BSD.

Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.

So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.

But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.

--
Duncan.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:05:54 +1300, whoisthis wrote:

> In article <>,
> Dave Doe <> wrote:
>
>> In article <who->,
>> mer, whoisthis says...
>> >
>> > In article <>,
>> > Dave Doe <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > What's the best.
>> > >
>> > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still
>> > > around)? The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular
>> > > combining with proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>> > >
>> > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>> > >
>> > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible
>> > > with the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they
>> > > want - regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with
>> > > other proprietory code.
>> >
>> > BSD.
>>
>> Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
>> wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
>>
>> So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
>>
>> But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.
>
> Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
> commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
> others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can. OSX is built on top
> of BSD, and I think you will find that WebKit (the engine behind a lot
> of web browsers and mobile web browsers) is also BSD based for some of
> it.

Of course, why doesn't he just release it into the public domain?


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

In article <who->,
mer, whoisthis says...
>
> In article <>,
> Dave Doe <> wrote:
>
> > In article <who->,
> > mer, whoisthis says...
> > >
> > > In article <>,
> > > Dave Doe <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What's the best.
> > > >
> > > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> > > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> > > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
> > > >
> > > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
> > > >
> > > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> > > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> > > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> > > > proprietory code.
> > >
> > > BSD.
> >
> > Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
> > wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
> >
> > So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
> >
> > But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.
>
> Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
> commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
> others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can.
> OSX is built on top of BSD, and I think you will find that WebKit (the
> engine behind a lot of web browsers and mobile web browsers) is also BSD
> based for some of it.

Thank you mate, I appreciate your comments. I got onto the MIT license
thing when I looked at the license used in the CMS I'm using. Then I
dug into the MIT license itself on Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_licence

and then this also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...tware_licenses

And so (so far) I've written up the new webpage thus...
http://www.adrock.com/Products/DelphiComponents.aspx

I'm still quite happy to change it!

--
Duncan.

On 17/11/2010 7:07 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
> What's the best.
>
> Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>
> I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>
> The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> proprietory code.
>
>
It depends what your objective is and whether you want it to be able to
be distributed within the policies of others.

Here's a good reference
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
and
http://opensource.org/licenses/category

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:42:47 +1300, whoisthis wrote:

>> Of course, why doesn't he just release it into the public domain?
>
> he was asking for options, that is simply another.

It's probably the license that gives the greatest freedom of all.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <> wrote:
> What's the best.
>
> Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
> The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
> proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>
> I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>
> The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
> the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
> regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
> proprietory code.
>
>
You are confused.

Have you read the GPL? It is in plain English. The word propriety does not
appear in it.

Have you read the BSD? Mr Apple has.

Get back to basics, what do *you* believe in? Take it from there.

On 2010-11-17, whoisthis <> wrote:
> In article <>,
> Dave Doe <> wrote:
>
>> In article <who->,
>> mer, whoisthis says...
>> >
>> > In article <>,
>> > Dave Doe <> wrote:
>> >
>> > > What's the best.
>> > >
>> > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
>> > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
>> > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
>> > >
>> > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
>> > >
>> > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
>> > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
>> > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
>> > > proprietory code.
>> >
>> > BSD.
>>
>> Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
>> wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
>>
>> So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
>>
>> But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.
>
> Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
> commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
> others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can.

I rest my case.

If you get free code, then everything you build on that should be free, so
that others can build upon it further.

Still your choice.