"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cacklv$1n7a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <cabm3p$eon$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
> >
> >
> >"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:cabl2v$chb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to
put
> >> > into SF in a few weeks.
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred
SF-friendly
> >> > license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
> >> >
> >> > Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
> >L/GPL
> >> > good?
> >> >
> >> > All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
> >words;
> >> > I'm just looking for simple advice.
> >> >
> >> > [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >>
> >> Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...
> >>
> >> --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
> >> -- Software ID: <s/w id>
> >> -- Version:     <version data>
> >> -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
> >> --              All rights reserved.
> >> -- Licence:
> >> -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
> >> -- warranty.
> >> -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
> >> -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
> >> -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
> >> -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
> >> --
> >> -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
> >> -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
> >> -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
> >> -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
> >> --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
> >> -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
> >> --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
> >> -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
> >> --    the it must ...
> >> --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
> >> --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
> >> --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
> >> --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*
> >
> >That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their
approved
> >list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this
project
> >is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.
> >
> >But thanks anway. :-)
> >
> >
>
> i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

Thanks to everybody for the suggestions. I went for the BSD (which is what I'd based the Synesis licenses on some years back).

I'll keep y'all appraised of the project if it proves to be useful, and I get it to any reasonable level of maturity.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message news:cabgb0$5lq$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
>
> I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
>
> Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
L/GPL
> good?
>
> All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
words;
> I'm just looking for simple advice.
>
> [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
>
> Cheers
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew Wilson
>
> Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
>     (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
> Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
>     (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
> Director, Synesis Software
>     (www.synesis.com.au)
> STLSoft moderator
>     (http://www.stlsoft.org)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>

The license you chose depend on how you like others use your code.

GPL is for forcing every distributed modification to and use
of your code to be open source.
Here your insure that it is open source to all users of your code.

BSD here your want credit from uses of your code and it may not be open source to all users.

I am a fan of double licensing GPL + Proprietary license.

Knud