Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
o/~ Join us now and share the 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.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.
- 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.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:
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!