Open Source License Poll


#1
  • LGPL V3
  • MIT

0 voters

LGPL Info
MIT Info

It’s that time. Interested to see where everyone’s head is at. This poll is not binding and only meant to be a starting point for moving towards a final decision.

I will hold off on my opinion so I don’t influence the voting.

One thing to note is that devs will be able to release closed source plugins, apps, etc to the Mugsy community pages. This is only for the Mugsy runtime, interface and decaf API.

If you do not have a preference, please do not vote. For more info on each license check the above links.

Thanks!


#2

@matt have you got any more information about your requirements? You were taking before about wanting to stop some of the larger companies doing certain things. Is that still an issue?


#3

@jjok My thoughts are basically this:

  • Any company that commercializes the Mugsy runtime or Decaf API should contribute back to the project by keeping their version open as well.
  • Commercial software that hooks into the Mugsy runtime at the API level can be closed source.
  • The run time and API can be used non-publicly and for internal facing tools without releasing the source code.
  • The code can be integrated into other code that uses non-open licenses.

The Mozilla License might actually be more in line with my thinking.


#4

Am I right in thinking that the main difference between the two licenses is that, with LGPLv3, you have to disclose the source code for any changes you make?

I think that having that in the license covers your first point:

I personally like MIT because of how simple it is, but I think it doesn’t cover all your requirements for this project. I think a copyleft license like LGPLv3 is a better choice.


#5

Definitely agree on MIT’s simplicity. I think GPL flavors may be a bit too restrictive so I’m digging the Mozilla Public License 2.0 more and more.

Here is a FAQ with some good info: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mpl-2.0/

My main concerns as they relate to the community specifically:

  • Must use an existing open source certified license, no custom anything
  • Will any of these licenses keep devs from not getting involved
  • Allow people to create apps/plugins(commercial or free) for Mugsy in whatever license they wish

MIT, LGPL and Mozilla all cover the first concern. As for the second, it’s probably going to be impossible to satisfy 100% of devs but I don’t want to use something that is inherently a turn off to large portion of them. GPL flavored licenses seems to have the largest amount critics due to the difficulty in satisfying all of the restrictions. The third is covered by allowing closed source Mugsy apps to interact at the API level instead of integrating with the runtime.

I think MPL is a good middle ground:

  • Simple language(mostly)
  • Allows easy integration with closed source code or projects
  • everybody has the freedom to use the code as they please, but any enhancements to the open-source code that are distributed publicly have to be shared back.

So that’s pretty much we’re I’m at. If community members have specific concerns with MPL2, I would love to hear them. I want to have this wrapped up in the next week or so.


#6

Hey @matt. I just found a piece of software that is available under multiple licenses, if that’s something you’re still interested in.


https://www.fmod.com/licensing


#7

Thanks @jjok, will take a look at this later today.