Re-license under GPL

[ergonlogic]

CC licenses are not considered appropriate for software, according to: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F. Unless you meant the license to only apply to the README...

They recommend a license from the FSF, which is basically some flavour of GPL.

As it stands, there are no software licenses that are technically compatible with CC.

[airtonix]

@ergonlogic would the MIT or BSD be acceptable as well? (I've not really paid too much attention to the process of licensing of my own creations).

Somehow (uneducated, first glance) GPL makes me feel a bit restricted. But I'm open to discussion.

[ergonlogic]

Certainly. The principal difference is whether you want derivatives to remain free also.

[muelli]

I'd welcome a GPLv3+ licence. The process of licensing it as such is quite easy.

[wells]

An MIT license would be nice

[ghost]

bump

[benaubin]

@airtonix The GPL doesn't restrict what you can do, just what others can do. The GPL is a great license, but so is MIT. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, GPL enforces a "share-alike" type rule, while the MIT license doesn't. Don't take this as legal advice, though.

[ghost]

Github authored an excellent human-friendly resource https://choosealicense.com/ for these kinds of decisions. 🙇‍♂️