[TIP] does licensing of test tools matter?

[C. Titus Brown]

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:08:27PM +0100, Michael Foord wrote:
-> Ben Finney wrote:
-> > holger krekel <holger at merlinux.eu> writes:
-> >> i was wondering the other day - is licensing of test libs and tools
-> >> and issue for anyone here?
-> >
-> > Freedom matters, regardless what the intended purpose of the work.
-> >   
-> >> As noted elsewhere i am considering using (L)GPL style licenses
-> >> instead of the current MIT license possibly for future py.test
-> >> releases so i am interested in opinions from testing people in
-> >> particular and trust no flame wars arise :)
-> >
-> > The fact that py.test is currently licensed under terms that respect the
-> > freedom of its recipients is a good thing.
-> >
-> >   
-> 
-> Here comes the flamewar. In many situations the GPL strongly *restricts* 
-> the freedom of recipients. Although less of an issue for testing code 
-> (which often isn't distributed) choosing the *GPL* will greatly reduce 
-> the number of people able or willing to use your code.
-> 
-> The LGPL is actually fairly free and unlike the GPL doesn't impose 
-> cumbersome restrictions on use and redistribution, so would be a fine 
-> choice IMHO.

My 2 cents... while I agree with many aspects of the GPL I'm trying to
switch completely over to BSD-like licenses (MIT or BSD, usually,
depending on the day).  This is solely because of the pragmatic
statement that if I use the GFPL, Michael won't use my software.  And I
really, really want Michael to be able to use my software.

Seriously, if your intent is to have other people use your software, I
don't think the GPL is the best way to go, because they will worry about
the license.  Best to remove all worries and just go with something
straightforward.

If your goal is *not* just to have other people use your software,
that's a different goal from mine and so I can't speak to it...

cheers,
--titus
-- 
C. Titus Brown, ctb at msu.edu