I appreciate everyone's feedback on this. I'll go ahead and dual-license as GPLv3+/ISC as soon as I can (my understanding is that ISC is functionally equivalent to MIT/X11, but with some unnecessary language removed). I'll do my best to accept pull requests under either/both licenses when possible, and I'll let the user choose which licensing terms apply to their case. This should have the effect of reaching the widest audience.
-Jude On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Svante Signell <svante.sign...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-25 at 13:00 -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:44:26AM -0500, Jude Nelson wrote: > > > Hi T.J., sorry this is late--this thread got lost in my inbox. > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback regarding GPLv3. > > > > The *big* problem with GPLv3 is that it is incompatible with GPLv2. > > It *is* compatible with GPL2+, but there is a lot of software that is > > licenced GPL2 without the "or any later version" clause. > > > > This may, of course, be considered a problem with GPL2, but in the > > present software ecology it will make GPL3 code harder to adopt. > > > > I will continue to licence any of my GPL software as GPL2+. > > The best would be to use GPL3+ to avoid tivoization. In case you want to > enable commercial use (modifications might not be given back) you can > dual license it, e.g. adding X11 (wrongly MIT) or 2- or 3-clause BSD. > See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
