Adopting the license of the library by default makes not much sense. A free license that allows linking unfree libraries would be the way to go.

I support this move, but I don't like the wording. First, I believe it would be better to start it with explicitly stating something like: "By having an account on the toolserver, you agree to license your tools..." Second, this bit doesn't mean a lot: "licensed under a free (like BSD) or GPL-compatible license by default". Is it dual-licensed? Released under all the licenses simultaneously? I suggest to change this to simply: "licensed under the GNU GPL v3 or any later version." The next clause "Source code is exempted from this if it is explicitly licensed" provides for people who want to release their tools under BSD.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM, River Tarnell <river.tarnell(a)wikimedia.de> wrote: Using a non-GPL-compatible license would create problems too, since it couldn't be integrated into GPL or LGPL projects, and those are two of the most popular licenses in existence. We could use the LGPL, or another GPL-compatible weak-copyleft license. Or we could just use an MIT-style license. They would not have an option of applying a strict license to already-published versions of their work, if they signed up without reading the terms carefully. On the other hand, if a very strict license is the default, users who don't like it could release their code more openly even retroactively.

IANAL, but as far as I know, even if I would 'revoke' (i.e. change 'MIT' to 'GPL') the license, you are still allowed to use and distribute it under the original license. Do you have a source for your statement? -Merlijn