From 8f4539ba4e876d296605089677e2a1797744eeda Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Glen Whitney Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 04:50:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update Licensing --- Licensing.md | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Licensing.md b/Licensing.md index a63396d..f463f79 100644 --- a/Licensing.md +++ b/Licensing.md @@ -3,4 +3,9 @@ Here are some questions that might help us choose a license: - What are we hoping that other people might get out of our code? -- If an ed-tech company started offering a closed-source fork of dyna3 alongside their other products, how would we feel? \ No newline at end of file + +Thoughts: the main reason to open-source is to invite and encourage enthusiasts to contribute to the project. A distant secondary goal is to share/allow people to see our methods for solving the problems posable in the interface. + +- If an ed-tech company started offering a closed-source fork of dyna3 alongside their other products, how would we feel? + +Thoughts: This is a bit hard to envision, as it seems quite unlikely. On the other hand GeoGebra has gone from basically a fully open-source community project to something that seems/feels much more commercial and closed. I'd be pretty bummed if some company created major new features/improvements that the open-source side would have to reimplement to distribute freely. To prevent such a thing, we'd basically need some version of the GPL or maybe the Mozilla Public License, is that right? I.e., what's known as a "copyleft", rather than just a "permissive" license? I think I've read that projects with permissive licenses, all else being equal, tend to get more interest/activity, because people just don't need to worry much about those licenses? Does that seem right/plausible? \ No newline at end of file