News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer. Parent comment

Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by makomk on Thursday February 02, 2017 @07:15PM (#13556390)
Open source software developers probably won't want to touch this with a bargepole. Oddball copyleft licenses are a pain in the ass to deal with an invariably incompatible with every other copyleft license including the GPL.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by shortstuffsushi on Thursday February 02, 2017 @08:47PM (#13556949)
Came here to say much the same. GPL / non-MIT generally = avoid, because IANAL and don't want to figure out if I'm in the right or wrong.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I replaced MIT with copyleft license for Nodemailer by badsectoracula on Friday February 03, 2017 @12:42AM (#13557978)
Note that EUPL is explicitly compatible with GPL and a few other licenses in that it allows you to license a derivative work under GPL (or the other license) instead of EUPL.
[ Parent | on HN ]