On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:20:26 -0300 Amadeus Folego <amadeusfol...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Amadeus, I love your music! > So, given this context, is there any manifesto about this particular License > choice? E.G is there a reason to avoid GPL? Well, let's take a look at the GPL first: It's a strict free software license, which means that it doesn't permit incorporating or even linking a GPL-software without publishing the software itself under a free software license and/or ship the software with the source-code used. We at suckless agreed that there should be the freedom for everyone to use the software in proprietary software as well. That's why the GPL is often considered harmful, as it inhibits the free flow of knowledge and often leads to complete rewrites of software, just because the authors are pissed off by it. Using the MIT/X-License, which is more permissive, we allow the users to make free choices. Now, why MIT/X? The MIT/X-license is very similar to the 3-clause-BSD-license with the difference that the MIT/X-license doesn't play around with the advertisement clause (in either ways). Moreover, the MIT/X-license makes clear what the end-user is allowed to do, including the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense and/or sell the software, stressing what we consider most important. > And if there is any consensus on this, can we display it somewhere > visible on the wiki? Nice idea! Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>
