An Open Source License for Education?

Erno_Rubaiyat asks: "The educational foundation that I work for is preparing to release some software. We are committed to releasing it with an Open Source license, but are unsure what license to use. I was curious if anyone had considered or compared the Sakai license to the Creative Commons licenses? I like the Sakai license because it is so simple, but does it leave any obvious areas open for abuse? As a side note: we are including several packages that are licensed under the LGPL and the GPL. Are there any pitfalls that we should be aware of while licensing our 'original' work with a different license than these components?"

Comments

I suggest the GPL, here's why.

[Hobart]

The GPL and BSD licenses are the most well understood licenses out there, and hence when someone else is considering using your code, they'll know right away what to expect.

Other less well-known licenses like Sakai should be left to organizations that have a legal department to make those decisions for them. The last thing you probably want is someone who might join in your software community and contribute useful changes back to you to be scared off by an unfamiliar license.

Creative commons is more about doco

[oo_waratah]

Creative commons is typcially about documentation rather than source code.

Options are with great simplification:

GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

LGPL like: You can use my software with anything but ANY modifications to my software must be published. Great for libraries.

BSD like: You may use this as you like, we may want attribution, we recommend that you release source code.

Public domain: Use it as you like.

What do you want to acheive is the question you should be answering.

Re:Creative commons is more about doco

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

Please don't spread this FUD. I don't know whether you intended it this way or not, but it is what you said. The GPL doesn't restrict use at all.

LGPL like: You can use my software with anything but ANY modifications to my software must be published. Great for libraries.

Again, the same problem. It doesn't cover use. Also, you don't have to publish your modifications unless you distribute altered binaries.

What do you want to acheive is the question you should be answering.

This bit I agree with.

Re:Creative commons is more about doco

[david.given]

GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

NO! NO! WRONG!

I'm sorry, but you're not doing anybody any favours here. You're making a huge, fundamental mistake that's just going to mislead people. This mistake is made over and over again and is the OSS community's biggest problem...

You see, none of these license say anything about how you can use the software. The GPL even explicitly states this. They are concerned solely with how you may redistribute changed copies of the software.

Here's the corrected version, to the best of my knowledge:

• GPL like: you may only distribute a changed copy of the software if your changes are licensed under the GPL. Copyright on the unchanged portions is retained.
• BSD like: you may distribute changed copies of the software however you like. Copyright on the unchanged portions is retained.
• Public domain: the original copyright holder relinquishes all rights to the software.

The corrolory to the above is: if you don't distribute your changes, the licenses are irrelevant, because their redistribution licenses, not user licenses. (This is why it's incorrect to use the GPL as an EULA.)

I don't know enough about the LGPL to comment; I believe that it's similar to the GPL, but has a much laxer definition of what constitutes a changed copy of the software.

Please, this is important. It's worth your while to try and get it right!

Don't Use the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, if you're distributing GPL'd software, you might have to GPL your own software. For example, if your software requires a GPL'd library to work, then you must use the GPL.

Second, using the GPL assigns copyright of the source code to the FSF. Here is an excerpt from the GPLv2:

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

That's why the FSF ends up being the ones defending violations in court. You give your software to them, and they use their power of copyright to defend it. This is a bad idea if you don't explicitly own the copyright to all of the source you're GPLing. If four or five people helped write the software, make sure they're OK with the FSF owning it. This is why Linux doesn't use the GPL outright. Here's the first two paragraphs from the COPYING file that comes with the Linux source:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Note how the copyright owner is explicitly named. Also note that Linux falls only under version 2 of the GPL. Many software projects state that they use the GPLv2 or any later version (there is no later version at the moment). There's nothing preventing the FSF from stating that the GPLv3 requires that only GPL software run on a computer where any GPL software runs, or that GPL software can only be used with the HURD. The HURD doesn't have to conquer Linux; it will start out with a full toolchain and many programs to go with it. Under the GPLv3, the FSF could deny the use of those programs under Linux. Suddently the big players in the OS market are Microsoft, the BSDs, and the HURD.

The best thing to do is to roll your own license, using either the BSD or GPL as a basis (depending on which you prefer).

WAY too simplified

[the_truk_stop]

GPL like: You cannot use this software except with other open source software.

And by ``open source'' you mean ``GPL''. The GPL specifies that if you make a derivative work, it has to be released under the GPL. You don't get to modify the license of the derived work. I don't know all of the arguments for what exactly a derived work is.

Public domain: Use it as you like.

Remember that this gives you no rights. If people take your product, change the name, and charge $10 for it on eBay, tough.

What do you want to acheive is the question you should be answering.

Truer advice was never given.

Re:WAY too simplified

[tepples]

I don't know all of the arguments for what exactly a derived work is.

For programs with authors in the United States, a "derivative work" is defined by 17 USC 101 and the body of case law interpreting the Copyright Act. Mr. Stallman intentionally left this up to the court system to decide.

Remember that [public domain] gives [the author] no rights. If people take your product, change the name, and charge $10 for it on eBay, tough.

But isn't what you described possible with software under GNU GPL as well? Fork a program and sell your distro on eBay. It's even easier with BSD licensed software.

Sakai Provisions

[More Trouble]

These make me nervous:

• Notice of any changes or modifications to the Original Work, including the date the changes were made.
• Any modifications of the Original Work must be distributed in such a manner as to avoid any confusion with the Original Work of the copyright holders.
• Title to copyright in the Original Work and any associated documentation will at all times remain with the copyright holders.

The last one might be a "duh", but the first two are probably unreasonable in an "open source" project.

:w