Licensing

Hi,
I want to make my Personal Lap Timer project available as open source. Its less than half the price to build and has more functionality than entry level commercial systems. I do not have the resources to commercialise the project and it has only been possible for me to get this far this quickly due to the open source Arduino platform so open source its going to be.

Does anyone have an experience of the various license types that can be applied to retain credit/attribution ?

Is there anything else I should be aware of or consider ?

Duane B

rcarduino.blogspot.com

I think the Creative Commons licenses specifically mention “attribution”. LGPL does not use the word “attribution” but it does require the licensee to retain all copyright notices. (a difference without much of a distinction [except maybe to a lawyer])

For what it’s worth, I’ve been using LGPL because it’s the same license used for AVR-Libc. My understanding is that it allows the licensee to transition to closed-source. I didn’t like the idea of my work becoming closed-source for a ghost but decided simplicity, consistency, and humility were more important. There was a reason I used v2 instead of v3 but now I can’t remember why.

It would be helpful if you described what restrictions (if any) you want to impose (e.g. can’t become closed-source, can’t be used in commercial work).

Hi,

I am looking for 1. Attribution, 2. Prevent commercial use 3. Prevent closed branches

I will have a look at the two you suggest and welcome any further comments or suggestions.

Duane B

As far as I know, Creative Commons is the only commonly used agreement that allows that much restriction. Were I in your shoes, that's where I would focus my research.