My personal vote goes to an MIT style license that way it's open source but not viral. Proprietary software can use it in their code base with no licensing issues yet we are not liable it if causes problems. We retain control of it yet others can benefit by it without worrying that we will come after them later and they don't have to worry that it will pollute their code base with viral licensing issues.

By on 4/12/2006 1:28 PM ()

I don't know the ins and outs of all the different licenses out there, but I think I agree with the MIT choice based on your description.

In fact, I should probably put something like that on my blog, because I release crappy code all the time. [:)] I don't care if people use it for profit, but I don't want to be liable.

By on 4/12/2006 3:05 PM ()

(Disclaimer: Like everything I do on the hub, I'm here is in a personal capacity and nothing I say has any relation to my employment or employer.)

It feels like you'd want (at least) Creative Commons for any text, video or images, and MIT for any source code and documentation embedded in that source code. An author might be a bit peeved if someone lifted hub articles as material for a book without attribution, but happy if they lifted code from samples, as long as no liability accrued.

You'd also want an opt-out for each individual article and blog author, right? So they could apply different licenses at their discretion, as long as it is prominent.

Some general agreement (informal) that "if OS gets hit by a bus then the hub trustees will together decide what happens" is I think implicit in our roles as a trustee. But watch out for those buses OS!

Cheers!

Don

By on 4/12/2006 4:21 PM ()
IntelliFactory Offices Copyright (c) 2011-2012 IntelliFactory. All rights reserved.
Home | Products | Consulting | Trainings | Blogs | Jobs | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy
Built with WebSharper