Re-release under different license?

[coldelectrons]

I'm working with a fork of your code, and I'm looking at using it with ROS (Robot Operating System). I'll be developing my own ROS packages, and would like to make them available publicly.

Their advice on licensing ROS packages:
http://wiki.ros.org/DevelopersGuide#Licensing

Simply put, using and releasing BSD licensed code makes releasing ROS packages easier, and easier for future users of ROS to work with those packages.

Could you or would you release a version of Avril under a BSD-style license? If not, I would certainly be interested in hearing your reasons.

[pichenettes]

I haven't used this code in many years and it's not very important to me,
so I don't mind if someone takes over from it with a new licence. What
would I have to do on my end?

This was a largely experimental/educational project, (badly) influenced by
the arduino libraries and there are many decisions I regret having taken. I
later did a similar library for AVR XMega (
https://github.com/pichenettes/avrilx) that I think is a bit better.

Best,
Olivier

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:00 PM, coldelectrons [email protected]
wrote:

I'm working with a fork of your code, and I'm looking at using it with ROS
(Robot Operating System). I'll be developing my own ROS packages, and would
like to make them available publicly.

Their advice on licensing ROS packages:
http://wiki.ros.org/DevelopersGuide#Licensing

Simply put, using and releasing BSD licensed code makes releasing ROS
packages easier, and easier for future users of ROS to work with those
packages.

Could you or would you release a version of Avril under a BSD-style
license? If not, I would certainly be interested in hearing your reasons.

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#9, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHNcblYwG9dn0cihg2aoIYM9ZPjmaHUks5q46XSgaJpZM4KkNCd
.

[ghost]

Hi! What happened to this Issue? It still seems to be unresolved.

I also think that the GPL v3 is a bit too restrictive for embedded code (for example because of the anti-tivoization clause). I don't know much about LGPL, or other stuff, but if you don't care much about the project anyway, as you said, than I think you should just go with the MIT licence: it is one of the most permissive licences, and it's the most popular free software licence nowdays (according to github, it was in 2015 at least: https://github.com/blog/1964 ).

What would I have to do on my end?

You could either dual licence it (release it under both MIT and GPL), or just simply change GPL to MIT. AFAIK with dual licencing you can just add a bit of explanation like "This software is dual licensed under the MIT and GPLv3 or later licenses.", and then just include the full texts of both licenses.

Of course, these are just my thoughts, I am not an expert on licences by any means.
Thanks, kuruczgyurci