Johann C. Rocholl wrote: > The MIT license is enticingly short and simple, thank you for the tip. > > I have now decided to license my project (including the pure python PNG > library) under the Apache License 2.0 which is less restrictive than > the GPL in terms of sublicensing.
But it is also incompatible with the GPL: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses It's obviously your decision about how you license your own code, but I'd advise you to disregard the "Pythonic license" rhetoric, whatever that means: Python's original licence was regarded as not being enough of a licence by some lawyers (that's what some people refer to as the original Python licence); subsequent licences aren't recommended for application to any other works (like various licences of the Python code over the years); despite advocacy for permissive licences by some parties, there exist numerous successful GPL'd and LGPL'd Python projects (meaning that projects licensed in such a way are not lesser members of the community). Moreover, any licensing gymnastics undertaken by the PSF did involve various extra somersaults to remain GPL-compatible, meaning that even people who favour permissive licences regard "licence interoperability" positively. If you're convinced that a permissive licence suits your code best, please consider something whose side-effects you understand. If the additional patent grant or licence termination clauses (which the FSF don't regard as a bad thing, just something incompatible with the current GPL/LGPL) are specifically what you want, then the Apache Licence may be what you're after; otherwise, you should choose something less baroque and better understood, perhaps from this list: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses Yes, one of the best places to find out about non-FSF licences is actually the FSF themselves, undermining various myths some people like to put forward. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
