Releasing an ASP.NET MVC 3 OpenId StarterKit under Open Source License -


i've build asp.net mvc 3 (rc @ moment) site uses openid login system. still learning openid while implementing commented code heavily. result site let's users login/register openid, add other openids account , remove them. little project can used starting point new project use openid login system. can used resource people learn openid with.

i decided release project open source. first open source project , need decided license use. want people able use purpose wish for. can learn it, use commercial or non-commercial projects , make own forks of code. nice others able contribute project stuff bug fixes on sites github. i'd copyright owner of code under control. example code in github repository (i'll call main code base). i've heard need every contributor, adds code code base, give me copyright contribution. how work?

i use other licensed (mostly open source) resources in projects. here's list , licenses:

  • dotnetopenauth (ms-pl)
  • t4mvc (part of mvccontrib licesned using apache license 2.0)
  • asp.net mvc (ms-pl)
  • ado.net entity framework ctp4 (i couldn't find license)

i of course want use main code base type of projects want. commercial, non-commercial, open source, ...

so have important questions here:

  1. which license should use? think gpl or lgpl not suitable here. looking @ apache 2, new bsd, mit , ms-pl. ms-pl seems fit as, i'm not sure.
  2. what restrictions and/or obligations have towards resources use in project? think read somewhere have add -license.txt ms-pl resources. true? how work apache 2 , other licenses? have if modify of these resources' code , use in project?
  3. i'd "as-is" clause in license, people can't sue me if goes wrong while they're using code.
  4. do need add files make clear license is? if so, how format that?

also 1 last thing. if decide make visual studio template out of samples how license that?

i've heard 1 report (from couldn't up) ms-pl restricts use other open source software of other licenses. disagree them, neither of lawyers.

most open source licenses including ms-pl include as-is clauses.

i totally support not going gpl or lgpl because severely restricts "freedom" software whatever want. it's highly sided toward "religion" of perpetual "free software" , not freedom. not trying flamebait, it's genuine concern.

personally chose ms-pl because share same goals question suggests have , felt ms-pl fit bill. i'm not in position promise correct legal interpretation, it's unprofessional opinion.

i believe required include licenses/copyright notices in own software redists based on ms-pl anyway, don't have add new references these licenses believe. i'd consider enough if license file included own license, , licenses of other software redist includes, mention files each license applies. , don't recompile of dependencies remove copyright notices may have been included in compiled software.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

android - Spacing between the stars of a rating bar? -

aspxgridview - Devexpress grid - header filter does not work if column is initially hidden -

c# - How to execute a particular part of code asynchronously in a class -