mxcl
Your preference on open source licenses
I've recently taken an interest into the different types of open source licenses and have a preference for something like AGPLv3 over MIT or the unlicense because in theory it forces those who fork & update the code to keep it open source which to me keeps the project inline with it's original nature, obligating future developers to pick up the open source baton or go elsewhere.
What's your approach when it comes to picking a license?
Over time my preferences have changed.
Initially I was only developing for Linux, and thus picked GPLv2 then v3 when it came out.
Over time though I've come to feel that open source is about the gift, and if I am willing to donate the code to the community then the free-er the license the better, hence I am picking the Unlicense often, though I stick with Apache 2 for apps since I don’t want people patenting any of it, software patents are anti-humanity’s progress in my opinion.
The main problem with GPL-esque licenses is that commercial companies cannot use it, and even if you think that everyone should open source their code (and generally, I agree) the problem is that commercial companies will not use your open source at all, and if less people use it, it will not gain the contributions they might offer, and certainly in my experience, company people are more likely to contribute back since its their bread and butter.
Another thing I like about the Unlicense is how it spells out that my progeny cannot try to benefit from my work. Generally speaking I want my kids to have to make their own way and not live off any profits they might make from my work. I want them to excel in their own way.
