I appreciate everyone's feedback on this. I'll go ahead and dual-license
as GPLv3+/ISC as soon as I can (my understanding is that ISC is
functionally equivalent to MIT/X11, but with some unnecessary language
removed). I'll do my best to accept pull requests under either/both
licenses when possible, and I'll let the user choose which licensing terms
apply to their case. This should have the effect of reaching the widest
audience.

-Jude

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Svante Signell <svante.signell@???>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-12-25 at 13:00 -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:44:26AM -0500, Jude Nelson wrote:
> > > Hi T.J., sorry this is late--this thread got lost in my inbox.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your feedback regarding GPLv3.
> >
> > The *big* problem with GPLv3 is that it is incompatible with GPLv2.
> > It *is* compatible with GPL2+, but there is a lot of software that is
> > licenced GPL2 without the "or any later version" clause.
> >
> > This may, of course, be considered a problem with GPL2, but in the
> > present software ecology it will make GPL3 code harder to adopt.
> >
> > I will continue to licence any of my GPL software as GPL2+.
>
> The best would be to use GPL3+ to avoid tivoization. In case you want to
> enable commercial use (modifications might not be given back) you can
> dual license it, e.g. adding X11 (wrongly MIT) or 2- or 3-clause BSD.
> See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>