I don't think we've really worked out an exact licensing type. We have a basic lisence aggreement in the root of the directory basically saying that if our software blows up your system, you aggreee to forget where we live. Of course, if you like our software then you aggree to send us truck loads of money in small unmarked bills or preferably bitcoins. For our part, we aggree to heartily spend all received funds in decadent and illicit fashion. What more of a license could one wish? Kirk On Tue, 11 Dec 2012, Kyle wrote: > Has any decision been made yet regarding licensing? I understand from the > original post that licensing was still undetermined. > > Personally, I'm a big fan of the unlicense[1] or cc0[2] which can be used for > software, unlike most of the CC licenses. On the other hand, if you still > wish to retain copyright on the code while preserving software freedom, GPL 2 > or later is probably best, unless there's a specific reason i.e. linking > against incompatibly licensed code, that GPL can't be used. Generally though, > the whole GPL and linking thing usually works the other way, where you can't > link against a GPL licensed library with a non-GPL licensed application, so I > don't see this as a problem in this case. Just some thoughts, hopefully > there's something useful here. > > [1]: http://unlicense.org/ > [2]: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > ~Kyle > http://kyle.tk/ > -- Well that's it then, colour me gone!
