Max: RC would be the one to talk to about GPLv3 versus MIT versus Creative Commons.
Posted by
Beryllium (aka grayman)
Feb 6 '19, 23:38
|
When I open source my code projects, I use the MIT license. If someone comes along and builds a company around the code I've released, I have no claim to that company.
If I were to open source my code under GPLv3, my understanding is that if someone built a company around it, they would be legally forced to publish "all" of their source code (the definition of "all" can be a bit fuzzy depending on the type of company/product). Sometimes folks refer to it as a viral license because of that aspect. But I still wouldn't have any claim to the company itself.
If I release my photos (data, not code) under Creative Commons, which I have for a few of them, they can be used according to the variation of the CC license I choose. I can allow or deny commercial use. I can require or not require being credited for the photo. Stuff like that.
|