Licence on open source

[bsvingen]

I am wondering aboout what type of license to use. LGPL or BSD (or maybe some other). I have read through some old discussions here, but since they are 4-5 years old, maybe something has changed. BSD is recommended here, but it is not entirely clear why LGPL is not recommended.

Thanks

[hooovahh]

I was told (possibly incorrectly) that both BSD and LGPL were very close. The explanation given was you can use it in commercial applications, and you can modify it, but the author must be attributed. I was not aware that LGPL was the one less recommended.

My knowledge on licensing is limited so please someone correct me if I am misinformed.

Edited November 30, 2012 by hooovahh

[jzoller]

I have always like rolfk's explanation at http://lavag.org/top...post__p__25413.

LGPL potentially requires segmenting your code into libraries that may not be natural to the architecture. BSD is much more permissive, in that it simply requires notices on the affected code, but doesn't really require an architecture change.

I thought http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/24/a-short-guide-to-open-source-and-similar-licenses/ was a pretty good summary, too.

Joe Z.

[Daklu]

What license you choose to use depends entirely on what rights you want to give users. BSD allows users to do pretty much anything with your code. LGPL maintains the GPL's copyleft policy if the source code is modified, but allows users to link to libraries released under LGPL without requiring it to also be released under LGPL.

You can also choose other licenses if you want. LapDog is released with a Rootbeerware license.

[bsvingen]

I have always like rolfk's explanation at http://lavag.org/top...post__p__25413.

LGPL potentially requires segmenting your code into libraries that may not be natural to the architecture. BSD is much more permissive, in that it simply requires notices on the affected code, but doesn't really require an architecture change.

I thought http://www.smashingm...milar-licenses/ was a pretty good summary, too.

Joe Z.

Yes, I have read all that, and that's why I am wondering. LGPL is supposedly too restrictive when used in a Labview environment.

[LogMAN]

If I would like to implement a couple of VIs which are licensed under the LGPL for an application in my company, then I would have to build a packaged project library (PPL) in order to prevent a licensing problem. The PPL can then easily be linked as external library from the build.

This will obviously get more complex if I want to implement LGPL licensed VIs from several sources (which I can't pack into one PPL as I understand the license).

I would have no problem with the BSD license, since there is no copyleft.

Therefore the BSD license is prefered from the view of a company and for the sake of maintainable source codes.

Greetings, LogMAN

[bsvingen]

If I would like to implement a couple of VIs which are licensed under the LGPL for an application in my company, then I would have to build a packaged project library (PPL) in order to prevent a licensing problem. The PPL can then easily be linked as external library from the build.

This will obviously get more complex if I want to implement LGPL licensed VIs from several sources (which I can't pack into one PPL as I understand the license).

I would have no problem with the BSD license, since there is no copyleft.

Therefore the BSD license is prefered from the view of a company and for the sake of maintainable source codes.

Greetings, LogMAN

There is no problem including external libraries, several of them, and keep them nice and tidy and separately when distributing the source (directly from the source distribution in the build). Maybe this problem only exist when distributing exe?

[LogMAN]

There is no problem including external libraries, several of them, and keep them nice and tidy and separately when distributing the source (directly from the source distribution in the build). Maybe this problem only exist when distributing exe?

Yes, I was actually refering to exe files.