License

[mpapis]

License

[mpapis]

I prefer LGPL as it requires to contribute the changes back, MIT does not give you that guarantee http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/81947/why-is-jquery-released-under-mit-and-not-lgpl/81954#81954

I can change license to other that still requires the user to give me the changes back, I do not require others to use (L)GPL on their software

[wbyoung]

LGPL also requires notice to users:

a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that
the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are
covered by this License.

If you're okay with the way I've given credit, the fact that it's not prominent during installation and/or use of my tool, and the fact that I've added your code directly to my tool rather than "linking" it, then that's fine with me.

Legally, I may have to share all changes in the file that I've put that code in, though, and make that LGPL as well. The legal language is difficult to understand in this scenario since nothing is truly being linked. I have no problem with LGPL, but it's just really hard to live up to the standards of the license here.

And no-one wants to see the LGPL when they use command line apps. :)

[wbyoung]

I guess the main point is I just feel uncomfortable using the code in my own project because of the license and the legal implications behind it.

By the way, I really appreciate your working on this and sharing it with everyone!

[mpapis]

I'm perfectly fine with it (credit), for such small codes a note above the function should be enough

as for legality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License - but then you would put the code in separate file and source it - as it is already promoted in README

[mpapis]

@wbyoung ok, time to decide, should I add another license or are you fine with current state and we can close this ticket?

[wbyoung]

Fine with me to close.