GPL, LGPL, AGPL- which license to use? (2008)
openshot.org
openshot.org
In the US at least, if you don't apply a license to your work the default license does not allow anyone else to use it without your permission.
> The main selling point of GPL (over other licenses) is your code can be freely modified by anyone, and even redistributed by anyone, but any public release of any version of your software (by anyone) must make the source code available. It's also perfectly fine for someone to sell a version of a GPL software product, however they must make the source code available, and they must not charge extra for the source code.
This is just straight up not true. As a commenter on the original site put it:
> I don't believe this to be accurate. Here's an example case that I think correctly shows the difference between these two licenses:
> Suppose someone writes a shared code library, say to do XML parsing or something. Then suppose I write a program that makes use of this library.
> If the original library was licensed with LGPL, my obligations I are pretty limited. If I make code changes to the library itself, I have to release that code back under the LGPL license, but my main application can be licensed however I see fit.
> In contrast, if the library was released under the GPL, my entire application written using that library is forced to be licensed also as GPL. (This is why the GPL is often considered to be "viral".)
Very little of this article is accurate. For a basic understanding, check out, e.g., https://choosealicense.com/.
Take my software, don't pay me, then extend it to build an expensive platform I get locked into. Really loving those fancy new proprietary time sharing systems you've built, portable stuff like lambdas, and the new serfdom you've created for us all.
Looks like you own computing now. Good job.
Crazy how we went from being a locked down, proprietary industry in the 70's and 80's, to a free and open paradise in the 90's and 00's, and then went right back to thin clients and SaaS/PaaS.
2) Actively avoid using AGPL and GPLv3 licenses if you can - don't encourage software socialism
Giving away everything, then not having it returned, is worse than "socialism". It's unilateral and asymmetric exploitation of our limited resources.
Doesn't have the GPLv2 compatibility problem that Apache 2.0 has. Unlike most copyleft licenses it's file-based, and doesn't restrict linking in any way. Unlike most permissive licenses it provides protection from patent litigation and trademark violation, and provides some "weak" copyleft protections.
Really the only downside is that it's "new" by comparison with most other licenses (9 years old instead of 35+), and that most people don't know anything about it.
[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/#versions-of-the-licen...
> Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.
This means if I am using MPLv2, if they modify it then it will be MPLv3 or something similar. My existing software should be unaffected
Sure, I can’t refer to v3 and claim the protection of v2. All they are trying to do is to prevent someone from making a fake MPLv3
> 10.2. Effect of New Versions
> You may distribute the Covered Software under the terms of the version of the License under which You originally received the Covered Software, or under the terms of any subsequent version published by the license steward.
So yes, you can use MPLv2 for your software; whoever receives at can, _at their discretion_, use it under MPLv3 instead. You can, of course, still use MPLv2, if you're also okay with people choosing to use MPLv3 for your software instead.
I believe they have this clause because the original NPL wasn't GPL compatible, and they had to go through some effort to relicense the Mozilla source code, and figured they never want to go through that again.