License

[ghost]

Hope you'll use MIT, BSD, or one of these other permissive licenses - http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses

[anacrolix]

Is the Apache license compatible with your purposes?

[jzelinskie]

+1 for MIT, BSD, or Apache. Just not GPL, please.

[ghost]

Apache License is definitely better than GPL, but it's a bit flawed from the perspective of the Copyfree Initiative - http://copyfree.org/standard/rejected

ISC, MIT, or 2-clause BSD are best.

Note that people who don't like restrictive licenses usually aren't motivated by desire to create a closed-source fork. We just find restrictive licenses hypocritical and contrary to the philosophy and spirit of "free software". Fortunately the copyleft fad has largely passed, they seem to be on their way out.

[3marcusw]

I'd recommend the Mozilla Public License[0] because it has, like MIT style licenses, the ability to link with code under any other license (Proprietary and GPL both), but still has file based copyleft that ensures modifications to the code will be open source.
[0] https://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/FAQ.html

[ghost]

Copyleft does nothing but harm the free software movement and alienate people. It's socialist / anti-business ideology.

[anacrolix]

I'm really liking the suggested MPL 2.0.

[ghost]

I now regret bringing up the license issue - it made the situation worse as far as I'm concerned... :(

[anacrolix]

You want to make closed-source changes? As I understand, MPL lets you do business as usual (such as bundling proprietary binaries etc.), just as long as the changes you make to source files that come with this repository are made public. It doesn't taint any of your other code.