[kwlug-disc] Switch license or keep it the same?

[doug moen]

Myles said "What I personally find more of a mindf**k is you are using a
scripting language that is PSFL (Python Software Foundation License) which
is a BSD-style license (GNU also has a page on it <
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Python>). So you are using
three different licenses PSFL, Apache License, Version 2.0, and GPL-3."

My Curv project has an Apache 2 licence. But the curv executable is linked
with libdouble-conversion (BSD 3-clause), libreadline (gpl3), boost (boost
licence), and many more other libraries. I haven't bothered to count all
the licences yet. The list of libraries changes over time; next month there
will be more. This is a normal situation. Since all of the libraries I link
to are open source, I don't really worry about it. I'm not confident that I
even have a simple and reliable procedure for finding all of the licences I
depend on. It might involve days of research, for all I know, since
libraries depend on libraries, which depend on other libraries.

On 23 April 2018 at 15:56, Myles Braithwaite 👾 <me at mylesb.ca> wrote:

> Paul Nijjar via kwlug-disc wrote:
>
>>
>> I am currently dealing with my first GPL dilemma. I have some scripts
>> here: https://github.com/pnijjar/google-calendar-helpers . It is
>> currently licensed under an Apache 2.0 license.
>>
>> In its infinite wisdom Google is sunsetting its goo.gl link shortening
>> service. I use link shortening in my email newsletters, so I am
>> looking for a replacement. I have decided it is better to outsource
>> link shortening to a third party rather than trying to set up my own
>> link shortener.
>>
>> The most promising library for shortening URLs seems to be
>> https://github.com/ellisonleao/pyshorteners/ . It is nice because it
>> supports many different services, and because it is maintained. It is
>> GPL3, so if I use it I have to change the license of my scripts.
>>
>> There are other libraries that support only one or two services, and
>> they are less maintained. (Of course, I could write my own code to
>> call the API of one or more services, but let's pretend I won't.)
>>
>> Nobody is actually using these scripts but me, so this is an academic
>> question. But I am struggling with it. Should I use the better library
>> and switch my license? Or should I roll my own or use a lesser library
>> and keep things Apache 2.0?
>>
>
> The Apache Software Foundation has a page about the compatibility of GPL-3
> and Apache 2.0: <https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>
> as does the GNU <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2>.
> The tl;dr is that the FSF considered the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be
> compatible with version 3 of the GPL.
>
> What I personally find more of a mindf**k is you are using a scripting
> language that is PSFL (Python Software Foundation License) which is a
> BSD-style license (GNU also has a page on it <
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Python>). So you are using
> three different licenses PSFL, Apache License, Version 2.0, and GPL-3.
>
> Personally I hate the GPL as I don't think it's free enough and release
> everything under the MIT license.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20180423/46faf108/attachment.htm>