Replies: 4 comments
-
Yes, the original license was chosen because at that time it was a simple and very direct Java port (we wanted to use it for SharpDevelop to efficiently store documentation XMLs for code completion) The change to MIT was part (or a a follow on) to the license change in SharpDevelop. Having a "non-standard" license (GPL with exeception) can be confusing, and we wanted to make it clear that linking is a-ok. More generally, GPL is fine for standalone tools, whereas when it comes to libraries, the license shouldn't create an adoption barrier. And quite frankly adoption (use) of the library is the most important thing for a thriving OSS project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Thanks a lot. I still have a further question to bother you. Thanks for your reply. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
With today's MIT codebase you can basically use it however you want (NuGet or code) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@JayLiangs regarding the original license, we didn't write it and are even less lawyers than you, so I don't think we can give you a better answer to that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hello,
SharpZipLib Team
I'm a law school student,and I’m doing legal research about opensource license and copyright system.
I know that from your Readme and Wiki that you have changed the license of sharpziplib from GPL to LGPL, then to MIT.
My questions are:
Thanks for your reply.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions