Re: [Oopic-compiler-devel] open source 'license' terms

[Neil D. <nd...@us...>]

D. Daniel McGlothin wrote:
> As a matter of procedure, has there been a 'license' or 'copyright' terms
> decided upon?

No.

> Does SourceForge 'impose' any license terms?  (I didn't check.)

All it imposes is that projects should be open-source.  When I set up the
Sourceforge project I was given a long list of different open source
licenses to choose from (just for informational purposes for people looking
at the project site) and I just put GPL because it's pretty much the most
common open source license and one I've used before on various projects.  I
put this pending a proper discussion about it later, and it's easy to
change if.

> If this is an open issue, my instinct would tell me to promote this to a top
> priority.

Yes, we should pin down the license terms before we upload any of our code
to Sourceforge (where it becomes open source).

Does anyone have any preferences to the licensing terms?  I would tend to
prefer whatever licencing terms help to promote the project and encourage
people to contribute.  As the GPL seems to be the most popular open-source
licence, I'm guessing that would be a good contender.

There are some comparisons of the various more common open-source licencing
terms here:

  <http://www.invis.co.uk/oslct/>

  <http://www.croftsoft.com/library/tutorials/opensource/>

Neil
-- 
Neil Durant
<nd...@us...>