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