Overly Restrictive License

May 28, 2011 at 5:56 PM

AFAICT, the LGPL license is an overly restrictive license for commercial software development.  I want to use the latest version of this library for commercial software development but would strongly prefer a less restrictive license.  Would the owner of this project have any interest in using another software license to allow greater use of the library?

Coordinator
May 29, 2011 at 1:12 PM
Edited May 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM

I'm glad that you find SystemWrapper useful.

I'd like to make this library as less restrictive as possible.  I have to admit that I don't know much about licenses.  I'm more interested in technology than in legal mumbo jumbo.  

I have no problem to change this project to different license.  Which one would you prefer?

May 31, 2011 at 12:34 PM

The MS-PL, under which Enterprise Library & Unity (e.g.) are licensed, are quite friendly for both corporate and commercial developers, as far as I know:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd203100.aspx

This license allows developers to take the source code for Enterprise Library, modify it slightly (for whatever reason, even if merely to tweak it for an existing enterprise), and still not have to publish the changes externally.

Other options (such as Apache's license, e.g.) are mentioned here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28530/corporate-friendly-open-source-licenses

I'm by no means believable with regard to licenses, but I need to avoid copy-left licenses when possible.  The MS-PL would be a safe choice, as far as I can tell.

Coordinator
May 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM
Edited May 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I just changed license to Ms-PL. 

Jun 1, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Very helpful.  Thanks so much for your helpfulness and kindness.  It will allow still more developers to use your useful library to create high-quality software.