Yes I know this has been beat to death, but there are licenses better suited to different languages/platforms depending on the particular community. My project is open source but will also be a commercial venture. Normally I use a bsd/mit style license, and I think that might fit better into the ruby/rails community then GPL. In addition I'd like to be able to easily include other ruby open source code that is very often mit licensed. But from my understanding I won't be able to include any GPL code. If I used the GPL I could include mit/bsd licensed code. Another issue is there might be some parts of the code that have to come with additional license terms. For instance third party api's that I implement have to be certified, and the third party might make me enforce those same restrictions on anyone who modifies those parts of the code. If using the mit/bsd license I could just put a module or two under the more restrictive license without affecting everything else, but I'm not sure how I would do that with the GPL. Could possibly cause some conflicts. Thoughts?
on 2007-02-20 09:06
on 2007-02-20 10:46
On 2/20/07, snacktime <email@example.com> wrote: > Thoughts? Well get legal advice from a lawyer. That would be my first advice. Mind you I do have some experience in this field - we had to do some groundwork for our company on how we use open source software. Everything hinges on when your code that uses code that has an OSS-license becomes a derivative work, and whether becoming a derived work means that your output is subject to the same license. I wouldn't mind some clarity in this case. A while ago your work would become a derived work of a GPLed product if you statically linked to it. Not sure how that works with GPLed dynamic languages. Perhaps there's a good resource that explains all of this for a coding audience?