I am debating whether to release the demo code I am writing under GPLv3+ or Apache V2. I love copyleft's protection of the commons, and I prefer to use it for my end user oriented stuff. However, for stuff to encourage people to adopt *standards* stuff, I tend to stick to more lax/permissive licenses since propagation of the ideas is more important than protecting the code itself.

· · Web · 6 · 4 · 12

For why not AGPLv3+ (even though I think it's a fine choice for many projects, including mediagoblin) for the future-oriented network stuff I'm working on, see my upcoming CopyleftConf talk :)

Show thread

@cwebber My personal rule is: libraries under BSD, applications under AGPLv3.

@phoe reasonable, though I'm very concerned about patents, so I prefer to use Apache v2 over BSD/Expat(MIT)

@phoe @cwebber libraries und er AGPL, then wait for people to use it in their proprietary web services without realizing it was agpl, then sue for source code, yay more free software!

@cwebber I'd love an LGPL but with exceptions for static as well as dynamic linking.

It's what advertise the EFF. (I'm on mobile so no link but it's in a choose a license article)

If adoption is more important than spreading the Commons, go for it. -> Apache

Or if there already are privative libs and you are doing an other implementation. -> LGPL.

But don't take this TOOT for official, I read it yesterday between 2 task and I'm not English native nor on point yet with licences.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!