What license?

[Zubb]

Hello,

I was curious what license(s) do the developers recommend we attach to Lua plugins or c++ code? I usually just copy paste from http://unlicense.org, but open minded about what you, the people with the admin or developer tags under your names suggest and why. I've been working on a few plugins and I'd rather do it right the first time and be in sync with other developers or as close as possible

[xoft]

I make all of my plugins public domain. I just hate the licensing stuff, all the legalese and all the loopholes, so I say, I want to be the good guy.

Note that by definition all Cuberite plugins are open-sourcish in the sense that anyone can view their source - there's no way to "compile" a plugin to hide its source, it's always plain Lua source files.

[LogicParrot]

I like GPL. "You can freely use my code for your project, as long as you let people freely use your code for their project". The less restrictive free licenses encourage people/companies to take without giving back.

---

I wonder: Since Cuberite is Apache licensed, is GPL'ing plugins allowed?

[NiLSPACE]

You can give your plugin any license you want, but if you want the plugin in the cuberite repo it needs to have the Apache license.

[bearbin]

You can have GPL plugins if the API is Apache licensed, but not the other way around, because you could argue that the plugin is a derivative work. (But it would be hard to enforce, and it doesn't matter in this case, because the main project isn't copyleft.)

[PureTryOut]

I like GPL. "You can freely use my code for your project, as long as you let people freely use your code for their project". The less restrictive free licenses encourage people/companies to take without giving back.

I would go for AGPL3 instead in the case of Cuberite plugins, as this is GPL3, but with the added clause of having to share the source (as server admin) to players that request it. Otherwise they wouldn't have to share it, since the clients do technically not run the plugin.

[bearbin]

The AGPL is only useful if you want to earn money licensing your plugin - I would not recommend it if you do not wish to do that.

[PureTryOut]

How so? I believe it only adds the requirement to share servers-side code with the users even if they are technically not running it. I might be wrong though.

[bearbin]

The idea is good, but the license doesn't achieve it's aim. If a server owner is running a server for fun and makes a modification to a plugin, they would normally contribute it back anyway, no need for the AGPL. (as there is no benefit for themselves to keep the change secret) If a commercial server owner sees an AGPL plugin, they will not use it at all and either license the code or commission a new plugin from a developer, as they would lose a significant amount of profit sharing their code with others.