What type of license should we use?

[raphendyr]

What type of license should this library be released under?

I think license should be permissive

• Boost - wikipedia
  • Boost is widly used in c++ projects. Is this c++ or avr/arduino project?
• LGPL - wikipedia
  • Arduino Java code is GPL and c/c++ code is LGPL licensed
• Apache License - wikipedia
• MIT - wikipedia

Any fun with copyleft licenses?

• GPL - wikipedia

Any other ideas?

[raphendyr]

Maybe simplest ever would be "If you try to sue us, you are not allowed to use this library."

[raphendyr]

I kinda like JSON license. It has a point. Only problem is when json code is packaged in other software (debian and fedora bug about json and php).

Other nice one is WTFPL - What the Fuck public license or Do What the Fuck You Want to Public License.

[artob]

You might also consider CC0 or the Unlicense for maximal permissiveness.

[raphendyr]

Oh. I forgot to thank for the information about those two licenses.

I noticed that this project is effected by avr-libc license as long as it's used:
http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/LICENSE.txt
If someone is producing proprietary software, I think it's safe to consider yaal under the same license for now.

Any case, if there is need for the license for any one, comment this issue.

I believe that we need to implement those parts our self which are currently used from avr-libc (should be only register names). And then it's the users problem what avr-libc license says if she/he is using that.

[raphendyr]

ISC license