> Many people choose the GPL when releasing a package because it is the most famous open source license, and did not consider issues such as those raised here when choosing a license.
Alan, Thank you for your comment. I think I will release diagram_cl
as my first MIT project :-) Hope that it finds some users then. Also,
I consider switching to MIT license completely. In fact, I like it
much more, it's shorter, more concise, and you can use my software ...
I'm not shure whether someone can release software under GPL
incorporating MIT licensed software? Otherwise I would release under
2010/2/24 Alan G Isaac <alan.isaac@...>:
> On 2/24/2010 2:36 AM, Friedrich Romstedt wrote:
>> Can you explain to me why you are so restrictive about GPLed code? I
>> mean, it's all OSS?
> The licenses are very different: BSD (and MIT) do not impose a viral
> copyleft. This is why Python is not GPL, nor is NumPy or Matplotlib.
> People writing code under BSD-like licenses must carefully avoid viral
> infection from GPL'd code.
> Second, while John Hunter's views are not identical to mine, he
> makes a collection of important points about licensing here:
> I'm going to treat John's note as enough of an answer to your question
> unless you want more discussion.
> Naturally, since you wrote the code, you get to choose the license, and
> your choice is obviously none of my business. Hopefully that goes
> without saying, but I'll say it to avoid misunderstanding.
>> Did you notice that it is not an example but an independent standalone
>> package? I'm not shure about this because you always talk about
>> "example". But maybe the summary is way too long, though ...
> Since you posted this on Matplotlib, I assumed you wanted people to be
> able to look at how you did it, not just use it. I am not diminishing
> the application by saying it looks to be a nice example of how to embded
> Matplotlib in Tk. If it were BSD-licensed I would probably get around
> to looking at your code.
> Alan Isaac