This project is read-only.

GPL Licence

Feb 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I noticed the licence changed to GPL. Any particular reason for that? Unfortunately for us, we can no longer us it. Any possibility of changing it to Ms-PL?
Feb 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Seeing ComponentONE make a product that blatantly takes this (in many cases, using the exact same API) - and commercializes it without attribution at all is making us reconsider the license.  Changed to the most restrictive one in codeplex temporarily until we get a better sense for which one we should use.  MS-PL is likely what we will be going with though - may be changing it to that today.  Stay tuned.
Feb 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Sorry to hear about that. Our particular case is that it's embedded in a niche specialized application and open sourcing is not an option. I presume the previous license required attribution? If so, name and shame component one. I wonder if you can consider a licence similar to CSLA?

6. Restrictions.
You may not sell the Software. If you create a software development framework
based on the Software as a derivative work, you may not sell that derivative
work. This does not restrict the use of the Software for creation of other
types of non-commercial or commercial applications or derivative works.
Don't know if that can work for a codeplex hosted project though. Anyway, hope it comes to a resolution that everyone is happy with. Thanks for the contributions.

Feb 19, 2009 at 3:36 AM
Will the license I changed to today work for you?  Not quite MS-PL, but close.
Sep 28, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Maybe the LGPL would be a good choice for this project. It allows linking to the assembly without having to redistribute its source code, but if you build your own product out of this project's source code you have to publish the changed source. LGPL is a license used by many open-source libraries.

Sep 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM

That is a very good idea.  Didn't think of that.