This posting is for the discussion of licencing terms for the tool.
Should we use use the Eclipse Public License? Should we use some form of BSD License? Is there some other licence we should consider?
Note! I am not capriciously spelling licence. Since I grew up using British English spelling, I prefer licence for the noun, but in terms where there is established usage, like Eclipse Public License I follow that spelling.
1 comment:
These get a little complicated I am reading through a few at the moment. I like the fact that the Eclipse Public License is a proper Open Source licence, however it appears that if you use this it not possible to add elements licenced under GPL v2.
At least there doesn't seem to be any problem with building on top of Eclipse and applying your own licence to the extensions.
Maybe the licencing of any content rather than the tool required another post, but I kind of assumed the where possible content would be licenced under the same Creative commons licence as used by Cpod (allows derivative works). Not sure about the one Serge Melynks uses (does not allow derivative works). Will the tool plus content count as a derivative work or just an enhanced player?.
Good to address these issues now, even if it does mean a little grief understanding the implications. I think it might take me another week or so of reading up before I am confident enough to express a firm opinion ;)
Post a Comment