licensing
Author
I'm very close to releasing my project. I had always planned to release it under the zlib license, but I am starting to wonder if I can do that.
My project depends on several other libraries and programs all of which are free but have different licenses. One program in particular, PNGout, is not allowed to be distributed with other projects. My project also uses FreeType, which requires that I specifically give them credit (I don't have a problem with that). I also use a few things that are LGPL; however, I do not include them with the project -- I just link to them through .sos or .dlls.
I know that many people complain how L/GPL licenses infect their projects. Have I fallen into that trap? If I want to release my project under something different then the LGPL, do I have to rid my project of everything LGPL?
I know for a fact that I have seen projects released under the zlib license that link to non-zlib licensed projects, such as FreeType. So, if I do not distribute any of these dependencies with my project, am I allowed to license it however I please?
Also, I'm wondering if zlib is the best license for my project. I'm going to release the source code. I don't want to force people into crediting me -- I would just appreciate it if no one would claim to have written my project. Furthermore, I want to allow my project's use in commercial projects, so I do not wan to release it under the GPL.
Quote:Original post by yahn
I know that many people complain how L/GPL licenses infect their projects. Have I fallen into that trap? If I want to release my project under something different then the LGPL, do I have to rid my project of everything LGPL?
As long as they are LGPL and not GPL and you are linking to them, not building them in static, you can use whatever license you want.
Quote:I know that many people complain how L/GPL licenses infect their projects. Have I fallen into that trap?With LGPL at least, those complainers are simply wrong (and if they're linking to GPL code without understanding the ramifications they're none too bright). LGPL does not "infect", so long as you follow its fairly simple rules.
Quote:If I want to release my project under something different then the LGPL, do I have to rid my project of everything LGPL?No. You really should read the LGPL over, or at least read a synopsis of it; Wikipedia has a decent primer on it. In short, the LGPL is "use this how you like, link to it however you like, but if you change the LGPL code, give back your changes."
Quote:I know for a fact that I have seen projects released under the zlib license that link to non-zlib licensed projects, such as FreeType. So, if I do not distribute any of these dependencies with my project, am I allowed to license it however I please?I don't see why not.
Quote:Also, I'm wondering if zlib is the best license for my project. I'm going to release the source code. I don't want to force people into crediting me -- I would just appreciate it if no one would claim to have written my project.These are much the same thing, though. Most of the other licenses (MIT, X11, three-clause or the commonly-modified two-clause BSD) require attribution. The difference between three-clause and two-clause version, which is not "official" but used by FreeBSD, is that the three-clause version prohibits the use of the copyright holder's name in advertising. The two-clause version allows it.
Quote:Furthermore, I want to allow my project's use in commercial projects, so I do not wan to release it under the GPL.Given your stipulations, I would recommend the MIT License, BSD License (two-clause, probably), or X11 License, all of which are semantically more-or-less equivalent. They do require attribution in binary and source redistributions, but that's something of a necessary evil if you don't want others claiming creation and ownership.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
