dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/01/licensing/

Licensing

After much deliberation I’ve decided to change the licensing of the software available on this site. This will affect all new versions of purely JavaScript solutions (including IE7). Previously, all site content was available under a Creative Commons Attribution License. However it has been brought to my attention that this is not suitable for JavaScript (software) solutions. These will now be available under a GNU LGPL. The attribution license will remain in place for non-software solutions (HTML and CSS).

Another factor that prompted this change was an email from Alexander Limi the founder of plone. It seems that the CC attribution license was prohibiting him from incorporating IE7 into plone. Apparently, the CC license is incompatible with many open source licenses.

Expect a few updates in the coming weeks all baring the new license.

Comments (3)

Leave a comment

Comment: #1

Why not the MPL? Generally, the MPL is considered more suitable for the goals of the LGPL. In fact, the GNU project recommends not using the LGPL. The CDDL is another option being based on the MPL and is nearing OSI approval. I theoretically like the CDDL more than the GPL (but IANAL); however, it is a new license and nothing has been released under its terms yet. Also note Simon Willison’s post on picking an Open Source License.

  • Comment by: Jimmy Cerra
  • Posted:

Comment: #2

Yay!

I have been playing with IE7 a bit over the last week or so, and wanted to include it into a GPLd project – phpGroupWare. IE7’s use of the CC license made this impossible.

Now I don’t have to send a dual license request email:)

btw LGPL is a lot better than MPL. GPL code can’t be linked to MPL code, yet MPL code can be linked to GPLd code. As the CDDL is MPL based, then the same issues are likely to apply. There is also the issue of the CC policy on software

/me waits impatiently for the relicensed release:)

  • Comment by: skwashd
  • Posted:

Comment: #3

Skwashd, why is the LGPL better than the MPL? IANAL, and I don’t follow your reasoning. LGPL code can’t link to GPL libraries; although, GPL code can link to LGPL libraries. MPL code is in the same situation as the LGPL with respect to the GPL. However it was my understanding that the definition of “linking” in the LGPL made it theoritically unsuitable for some types of loose linking protocols (e.g. see Java’s classpath), which the MPL corrects.

Comments are closed.