I am leaning towards the MIT licence as it seems l...
# randomf
florian
11/07/2017, 10:09 AMI am leaning towards the MIT licence as it seems less ambiguous and it's very permissive
m
Martin Peck
11/07/2017, 10:24 AMit's worth looking at https://choosealicense.com/
Martin Peck
11/07/2017, 10:25 AMMIT is the one that pretty much says "do what you want with it" and, as such, is very open
Martin Peck
11/07/2017, 10:36 AMReact uses MIT.
Graphcool framework uses Apache 2.0.
AFAIK (and I'm not a lawyer) neither of these licenses care how you then use libraries licensed by them. So, if you want to make your own package MIT, that's fine.
If you're using GPL licensed libraries, then GPL has requirements about releasing your code under a "compatible license".
It's worth reading around this subject, but if your intent is to make your code available to people, and you don't care how they use it or distribute their code, then MIT or Apache 2.0 are worth looking at.
f
florian
11/07/2017, 10:44 AM@Martin Peck thanks,yep looks like MIT or Apache 2 is the way to go for me
florian
11/07/2017, 10:45 AMAnd thanks for providing the link I'll study that !
a
agartha
11/07/2017, 1:37 PMI actually like the 'compatible license' part of GPL-3, so that's what I normally use.
m
Martin Peck
11/07/2017, 7:01 PMyeah - if you want to ensure that your component/library/code goes on to be part of an open source product then GPL is the way to go. However, if you're really just trying to say "you're welcome to do anything you like with this code - commercial/closed source, or otherwise - but please don't hold me liable for it" then MIT or Apache is the way to go.
💯 1