Update Licensing
parent
f314eba7fc
commit
9ec071aef2
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -10,4 +10,4 @@ Thoughts: the main reason to open-source is to invite and encourage enthusiasts
|
|||
|
||||
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?
|
||||
|
||||
Here is one [guide to licenses]( https://choosealicense.com/licenses/), that seems to concur with the above musings. Reading it, the leading candidates seem to be either the Mozilla Public License or the Apache License -- those seem to be at the boundary contemplated above.
|
||||
Here is one [guide to licenses]( https://choosealicense.com/licenses/), that seems to concur with the above musings. Reading it, the leading candidates seem to be either the Mozilla Public License or the Apache License -- those seem to be at the boundary contemplated above. And I'm not aware of any reason to use a license other than the half-dozen or so listed in that guide.
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue