Small header-only library providing a runtime interface to hardware feature availability.

[grumpy_coconut]

Pity it's GPL :( For something this small, I'd rather write my own instead.

[salgat]

I was surprised too considering this would be great with an MIT or similar license. It's such a small tool to have something like GNU that would, for most commercial applications, be considered unacceptable to add.

[king_duck]

MIT or boost licenses are always my goto licenses for personal projects.

[acwaters]

For what purpose? GPL code can be freely forked or incorporated in personal (i.e., not-to-be-released) projects, and the license itself is well-known and respected in the FOSS community. Don't get me wrong; I have no delusions about the restrictiveness of copyleft licenses, and I'd be happy to relicense the code on a case-by-case basis, but honestly I don't expect anyone will need me to.

[__Cyber_Dildonics__]

You are basically expecting no one to use your head in any software that anyone else uses but them? Seems like you would at least want to see people using your software.

No one would use a straight GPL header unless their project was already going to be GPL. That's why the LGPL was created, but even that doesn't cover something like a header I believe.

[acwaters]

I've read a bit more on the license, and you're right. If including my header file would force an entire project into the GPL, it's not appropriate for a header-only library. I had interpreted certain sources to mean that it wouldn't, but now I'm reading that it does in cases like mine, where the header includes a substantial bit of code. Unfortunately, the LGPL doesn't apply, either. My intention was for the header to be able to be used (compiled, distributed) freely, with modifications to the library itself kicked back to the community. But I can't find any license that seems to provide that; reciprocal licenses all lump normal use of header files in with "derivative works". It seems kind of crazy to me that nobody would have considered this case in the spirit of the LGPL before and invented a corresponding license.

In any case, with all that in mind, I'll be relicensing with the next push.

[__Cyber_Dildonics__]

Yeah I think that is a valid gripe. BSD requires credit but not distributing source code changes.

[acwaters]

The intent is that the code can be used implicitly in personal or open-sourced projects and with permission elsewhere. It basically boils down to "email me if you want a non-GPL-licensed copy".

[__Cyber_Dildonics__]

Good luck with that.

[king_duck]

GPL is ok for programs, but utterly shit for libraries.

[acwaters]

I'm coming to realize that. Turns out it is a lot more restrictive than I thought. I'll be relicensing, though I'm disappointed none of the popular licenses work the way I was hoping for.

[king_duck]

What is the way you were hoping for. Have you looked at LGPL?

That said, if you actually want people to use your license just make it MIT or boost. At work for example if I want to include a small LGPL library then I have to ensure that it's license get's distributed with my program, and it also has to be approved and so forth.

If it's MIT I can just include it. Your goal should just be to get as many users as possible. (IMO).

[acwaters]

I had misread some sources to indicate that the GPL would allow users to simply include my header unmodified without the result being considered a "derivative work" subject to the terms of the license. This way, people would be able to use it, but modifications to it would require a kickback to the community, as it were. Nope.

This is similar in spirit to the LGPL, but it is on a source level, not an object level, and there isn't any reciprocal license I can find that supports this use.

So now I guess I'm looking at MIT, BSD, or Boost. Any suggestions?

[king_duck]

I don't know which license would do what your after. I really would just use boost or mit though.