Souce code, both code snippets and entire files, that appear or are attached in the OS Development Wiki/FAQ need to have a license stated. This is necessary so people know if they can use the code in their own projects. Once a license is determined an attempt will be made to contact all previous authors to ask if they do not agree with the license and would like their content removed. A author that does not contact osdev.org immediately will be able to request the removal of their content at any time. For more information consult the URLs below.
GPL - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php
LGPL - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php
MIT - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
BSD - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Public Domain - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
OSDev Wiki Poll (Souce Code License)
I voted public domain, but what I really mean is public domain equivalent with some sort of a disclaimer.
IMHO it makes sense that if somebody wants stricter license, they can just post a link in the Wiki, and host the source files themselves. If we want to archive them into the Wiki, we could always allow specific pieces of code to have extra licenses where specified..
But since you linked to the new BSD without the advertisement nonsense, I believe any of BSD/MIT/PD are basicly ok with me.
edit: IMHO licensing with LGPL hardly makes sense for stuff that can't easily be made into a shared library. And licensing with GPL will (again IMHO) give unfair preference to people using GPL over those that want their OS under more liberal (or strict) terms, or simply with a shorter license.
IMHO it makes sense that if somebody wants stricter license, they can just post a link in the Wiki, and host the source files themselves. If we want to archive them into the Wiki, we could always allow specific pieces of code to have extra licenses where specified..
But since you linked to the new BSD without the advertisement nonsense, I believe any of BSD/MIT/PD are basicly ok with me.
edit: IMHO licensing with LGPL hardly makes sense for stuff that can't easily be made into a shared library. And licensing with GPL will (again IMHO) give unfair preference to people using GPL over those that want their OS under more liberal (or strict) terms, or simply with a shorter license.
The real problem with goto is not with the control transfer, but with environments. Properly tail-recursive closures get both right.
-
Brynet-Inc
- Member
- Posts: 2426
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:29 pm
- Libera.chat IRC: brynet
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
-
chase
- Site Admin
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:46 pm
- Libera.chat IRC: chase_osdev
- Location: Texas
- Discord: chase/matt.heimer
- Contact:
Forgot to mention that the poll is set to end 7 days from my original post in this thread. Once the poll ends I'll send out the emails asking any authors that don't agree to inform me so I can delete their content. I'll allow 7 more days for email responses before making an offical license announcement.