<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Josh Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh_johnson@unc.edu">josh_johnson@unc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I'm on the cusp of releasing a bunch of software that we've developed over the past couple of years here in the blitzen group.<br>
<br>
So I'm at the point where I'm choosing a license.<br>
<br>
I consulted UNC's office of legal council about this, and they said that campus is cool with whatever license we decide to use, as long as it has a 'no implied warranty/non-liability' disclaimer. (not in those exact words, of course :D)<br>
<br>
So, we've got a lot of options.<br>
<br>
I'm just curious what folks in the area are using, have used in the past, and any personal anecdotes regarding how it went over time.<br>
<br>
I'm indifferent as far as virality, restrictions on reuse, providing source, commercialization, etc.<br>
<br>
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on any licensing strategies you've tried; starting a philosophical debate, not so much. :)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I tend to use BSD these days. It is the least restrictive of all. Pretty much anybody can use it for whatever they want. They just have to give attribution and can't change the license for your code. If a customer needs me to build something for them that they want to keep closed source, then using BSD licensed code still works. (This doesn't tend to happen in practice, as these customers simply use the code internally to provide a service as opposed to releasing their software for distribution--even GPL works fine for this, if you don't distribute the software.) At any rate, it's just the easiest for me, as its open source as a practical means of getting things done, as opposed to an ideology.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div> </div></div>