On 2014-05-29 14:39, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> GPL can be a toxic
license. Its great if you're OK with being
> boxed-in, but its too
encumbered to do anything outside of Stallman's
> vision. Apache, Boost
and {2|3}-clause BSD license will likely be more
> useful for those who
want to reuse code or components.
>
> Build the code in C/C++ so its
portable and available everywhere.
> Package it as a library. Build the
loader using platform
> specific/native APIs. Build the front-end using
the platform specific
> frameworks. For example, use Cocoa and Objective
C on Mac OS X, use Qt
> on Linux, etc.
>
> I've built multi-platofrm
libraries using C/C++ for years. They are
> write once, run everywhere.
The libraries run on Windows, Linux, OS X,
> Android and iOS. Windows
Phone and Windows RT kind of sucks, though.
Thanks Jeff!
I was
thinking along those lines, except that I want to dispense with C++ and
keep the code in C altogether. Better portability than with C++, and
fewer headaches for the developers who'll audit/contribute to the code.
The only reason I was considering GPLv2 was for its toxicity... it may
deter third-parties from hijacking the code into other applications. In
the normal course of business all my open source stuff is done under BSD
or Apache. I think I'll continue with either of those (thinking that BSD
might be the best).
Layering it as a library + drivers was also my
general idea (hence looking into how Fuse works). Thanks very much for
the advise; you've confirmed some 5,000' level assumptions I'd made, and
showed me a better path when it comes to licensing.
Cheers!
pr3d
_______________________________________________
Sent through the Full Disclosure mailing list
http://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/fulldisclosure
Web Archives & RSS: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/
