Post 3614025 by clacke@libranet.de
 (DIR) More posts by clacke@libranet.de
 (DIR) Post #3581828 by cwebber@octodon.social
       2019-01-31T11:43:56Z
       
       1 likes, 2 repeats
       
       I am debating whether to release the demo code I am writing under GPLv3+ or Apache V2.  I love copyleft's protection of the commons, and I prefer to use it for my end user oriented stuff.  However, for stuff to encourage people to adopt *standards* stuff, I tend to stick to more lax/permissive licenses since propagation of the ideas is more important than protecting the code itself.
       
 (DIR) Post #3581851 by cwebber@octodon.social
       2019-01-31T11:49:23Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       For why not AGPLv3+ (even though I think it's a fine choice for many projects, including mediagoblin) for the future-oriented network stuff I'm working on, see my upcoming CopyleftConf talk :)
       
 (DIR) Post #3581852 by valerauko@pawoo.net
       2019-01-31T11:58:28Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber totally with you on this one
       
 (DIR) Post #3582103 by phoe@functional.cafe
       2019-01-31T11:50:08Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber My personal rule is: libraries under BSD, applications under AGPLv3.
       
 (DIR) Post #3582104 by cwebber@octodon.social
       2019-01-31T11:52:11Z
       
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @phoe reasonable, though I'm very concerned about patents, so I prefer to use Apache v2 over BSD/Expat(MIT)
       
 (DIR) Post #3614024 by hankg@mastodon.technology
       2019-01-31T15:55:45Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cwebber I'd love an LGPL but with exceptions for static as well as dynamic linking.
       
 (DIR) Post #3614025 by clacke@libranet.de
       2019-02-01T07:02:18Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @hankg MPLv2's file-based copyleft achieves that.