Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Source License Comparison

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the compare-and-contrast dept.

rbb writes "Bryce Wilcox-O'Hearn, aka Zooko, has put together a simple chart that in just a few lines displays the characteristics of each of the most popular Open Source licenses. The table, which is currently in version 0.8.3, makes it easy to see in a glance how the licenses compare to one another." Easily digestible information - good for PHB [?] s.

7 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Hey! by tinahdee · · Score: 2, Informative
    This license comparison story first appeared on Newsforge, and I wrote the paragraph that was posted at the top of this discussion. Just trying to wrest some credit where credit is due.

    We now return you regularly.

    Tina Gasperson

    --
    tinahdee beautiful jewelry: silver, gold, gemstones tinahdee.etsy.com tinahdee.com facebook.com/beautifuljewelry
  2. Re:Free as in **? by sro · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out The Free Software Definition over at gnu.org. sro

  3. GPL encumbering clause by Proud+Geek · · Score: 3, Informative
    From the GPL v2:
    "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
    From what I understand, this means that although the GPL does not require you to contribute patents, if there are any patents that would encumber free distribution of the code or derivative works, you are not allowed to distribute the code. The effect is very similar to requiring a patent license, in that you can not enforce patents of your own against GPL'd works that you have distributed, nor distribute GPL'd works where redistribution would be encumbered by third-party patents.
    --

    Even Slashdot wants to hide some things

  4. Re:Free as in **? by Hobbex · · Score: 3, Informative


    It's used to differentiate between the very strange english homonym for "without price" and "having freedom" (and the other 17 meanings .

    If you get "free beer" that would imply that you got without cost, not that beer was liberated from servitude. So if something is "free as in beer", then it has no cost.

    OTOH if have "free speech" that you have freedom to speak as you will, not that you don't have to put a coin in the slot every time you feel like talking.

    IANAL (l=linguist) but to me English seems to be pretty alone in having this confusion, as most European languages seem to use words derived from latin gratis for no cost (cf 'gratitude') and liber for freedom (cf 'liberated').
    Maybe says something about the cultural mentality...

  5. Re:Free as in **? by Kythorn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Free as in beer is like being given a free beer. Company X is letting you download their product for free (generally for personal use), but you have very limited rights (if any) to what can be done with this product. You can use it. You can't modify it, you can't redistribute it, and if you don't like it, you're out of luck. Free as in speech means you can modify, redistribute, pretty much whatever you want with it, within the constraints of the license. About the only thing you can't do is modify the terms of the license.

  6. Open Source Licenses are so confusing... by Mentifex · · Score: 2, Informative
    With all these different Open Source licenses and legalese involved, it is so difficult to determine an appropriate license for http://freshmeat.net/ai/ and for http://sourceforge.net/projects/mind/ that a perhaps dangerously naive Public Domain license has remained in place by default -- even as the ominous specter rears its head of a potential military take-over of the Open Source artificial intelligence project, as evidenced by these recent logs of access by military domains to the www.scn.org/~mentifex/ AI Home Page:

    07/Aug/2001:07:22:58 - pentagon.mil - /~mentifex/jsaimind.html
    07/Aug/2001:14:44:12 - af.mil - /~mentifex/aisource.html
    07/Aug/2001:14:44:16 - af.mil - /~mentifex/jsaimind.html
    07/Aug/2001:14:48:19 - af.mil - /~mentifex/index.html
    08/Aug/2001:11:21:48 - army.mil - /~mentifex/
    08/Aug/2001:11:22:02 - army.mil - /~mentifex/aisource.html
    08/Aug/2001:22:18:15 - nosc.mil - /~mentifex/aisource.html

  7. interactive version by Zooko · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check this out:

    Peter Lowe has written an interactive version of the License Quick Ref which shows you the table in a way that reflects your own biases. Ha!

    http://yoyo.org/~pgl/lqr/

    Regards,

    Zooko

    P.S. Despite my fears of massive slashdot flamage, there has actually been pretty much no flames, except for one from a certain unnamed Linux world journalist. Maybe the community is growing up! After all, Linux itself is 10 years old, so the first generation of Linux hackers are now in their late 20's at least.