Review license choice for source code/ NuGet package.

[darrencomeau]

Could they be different?

Want to ensure the software and binaries are available under the most appropriate license.

Source code should be open for anyone to use or amend but not commercialise

Binaries should be available for all to use in open and closed projects of public or commercial nature

[darrencomeau]

Current license attached to NuGet package is the same as the source code

<licenseUrl>https://github.com/VulcanAnalytics/DBTester/blob/master/LICENSE</licenseUrl>

which is the GNU General Public License Version 3

[darrencomeau]

Reading through the www.gnu.org faq I think that this license is acceptable.

Two parts stand out;

1. You can use this code privately in your own business without restriction.

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? (#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic)
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

2. You can test your commercial application with a test suite derived from this software as the test suite is a tool, not part of your product.

Can I use GPL-covered editors such as GNU Emacs to develop nonfree programs? Can I use GPL-covered tools such as GCC to compile them? (#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF)
Yes, because the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code.
Some programs copy parts of themselves into the output for technical reasons—for example, Bison copies a standard parser program into its output file. In such cases, the copied text in the output is covered by the same license that covers it in the source code. Meanwhile, the part of the output which is derived from the program's input inherits the copyright status of the input.
As it happens, Bison can also be used to develop nonfree programs. This is because we decided to explicitly permit the use of the Bison standard parser program in Bison output files without restriction. We made the decision because there were other tools comparable to Bison which already permitted use for nonfree programs.

What about using the test framework in open source projects which aren't compatible with GPL?

My reasoning here would be that the test suite would need to be GPL compatible but the main program could be separately licensed. This post backs up that idea - Using GPL library in unit test suite of open source library?

This post Why you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library puts another light on things with the emphasis on wanting to defend the open source community and keep knowledge in the public domain.

So if I consider some statements, is this what I want?

• Inside a private business you can test what you like.
• If you create a new database testing framework with this code and you make the application or library public you have to release it's code as GPL.
• If you make publicly available a project with a test suite then those test suites which derive from this library would need to be licensed under GPL.
• If you sell software based on this library, other people can distribute that software free of charge.
• If you extend this work, you can't patent your work and threaten others.

Seems reasonable for now.

For now I will close this issue. If anyone finds that they want to use this project but the license is prohibitive - please get in touch.