Re: [Matplotlib-users] more demos of mpl with wxPython

[eliben <el...@gm...>]

Alan G Isaac wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, eliben apparently wrote:
>> I wouldn't imagine anyone would hesitate borrowing code 
>> from a demo because of a lack of license. 
> 
> It depends on what you mean by "lack of a license".
> I think what most people (myself included) would
> like to see for a demo script is "this file is in the public 
> domain".  That is not exactly a "license", but it roughly
> means "use this however you want without worrying about
> any restrictions, not even attribution requirements".
> 
> I do not think the LGPL generally makes sense (literally) 
> for such scripts:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
> 
> If public domain is uncomfortable,
> then perhaps MIT or BSD would be comfortable.
> <URL:http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html>
> 
> Of course, s/he who has the copyright chooses the license.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alan Isaac
> 

Although we're markedly off-topic here, I want to mention that I've battled
with the question of licensing my code. It's documented here:
http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2006/04/13/choosing-an-open-source-license-for-my-code/

The choice of LGPL eventually stems from my desire to promote free software,
and prevent abuse. True, for demos it makes less sense than for full-blown
libraries, but still...

Consider this: the demo teaches someone how to make some interface/code
work. He got it for free, because I've placed my demo publicly online. But
he may want to incorporate it in his program, and hide from his users how he
does the thing the demo taught him, winning a competitive advantage. This
isn't fair, and LGPL prevents such use, while in general allowing one to use
the code in commercial applications.

Eli


-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/more-demos-of-mpl-with-wxPython-tp18770262p18779533.html
Sent from the matplotlib - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.