digitalmars.D - Phobos-compatible license on Google Code?
- Justin Spahr-Summers (15/15) Jul 30 2010 Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new
- retard (6/23) Jul 30 2010 They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as
- Justin Spahr-Summers (6/32) Jul 30 2010 Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host
- Robert Jacques (6/39) Jul 30 2010 Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without
- Jeff Nowakowski (4/8) Jul 31 2010 That's a potential way of getting yourself banned from Google Code. I
- div0 (6/10) Jul 31 2010 Try:
- Justin Spahr-Summers (3/19) Aug 01 2010 It's certainly tempting, but the fact that they don't offer Mercurial
- div0 (5/24) Aug 02 2010 If you can be bothered, keep an eye on it.
- Walter Bright (2/19) Jul 30 2010 Since Google is a heavy C++ user, I'm surprised Boost isn't on the list.
Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new projects: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License 1.0 GPL v2 GPL v3 LGPL MIT License Mozilla Public License 1.1 New BSD License Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but certainly a lot uglier.
Jul 30 2010
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new projects: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License 1.0 GPL v2 GPL v3 LGPL MIT License Mozilla Public License 1.1 New BSD License Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but certainly a lot uglier.They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.
Jul 30 2010
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:47:30 +0000 (UTC), retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new projects: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License 1.0 GPL v2 GPL v3 LGPL MIT License Mozilla Public License 1.1 New BSD License Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but certainly a lot uglier.They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.
Jul 30 2010
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:50:18 -0400, Justin Spahr-Summers <Justin.SpahrSummers gmail.com> wrote:On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:47:30 +0000 (UTC), retard <re tard.com.invalid> wrote:Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without dual-licensing. However, since Boost is compatible with all of these, you could make the project MIT, for example, and then have each file licensed under Boost.Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new projects: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License 1.0 GPL v2 GPL v3 LGPL MIT License Mozilla Public License 1.1 New BSD License Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but certainly a lot uglier.They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.
Jul 30 2010
Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> On 07/31/2010 02:46 AM, Robert Jacques wrote:Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without dual-licensing. However, since Boost is compatible with all of these, you could make the project MIT, for example, and then have each file licensed under Boost.That's a potential way of getting yourself banned from Google Code. I would just avoid Google Code all together if you really want to use the Boost license. They have a very strict stance against license proliferation.
Jul 31 2010
On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.
Jul 31 2010
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:06:26 +0100, div0 <div0 sourceforge.net> wrote:On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:It's certainly tempting, but the fact that they don't offer Mercurial without payment is a bit off-putting to me.Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.
Aug 01 2010
On 02/08/2010 05:14, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:06:26 +0100, div0<div0 sourceforge.net> wrote:If you can be bothered, keep an eye on it. The guys's on about sorting out non https access for git/mercurial at some point. Subversion is perfectly good for small teams and you can upgrade later.On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:It's certainly tempting, but the fact that they don't offer Mercurial without payment is a bit off-putting to me.Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.
Aug 02 2010
Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new projects: Apache License 2.0 Artistic License/GPL Eclipse Public License 1.0 GPL v2 GPL v3 LGPL MIT License Mozilla Public License 1.1 New BSD License Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but certainly a lot uglier.Since Google is a heavy C++ user, I'm surprised Boost isn't on the list.
Jul 30 2010