Slashdot Mirror
License for Open-Source Software w/ Plugins?
ThiagoHP asks: "I have developed MultiMAD, a rapid application development and prototyping for for mobile devices in my master's course, and now I want to share it with the community. It's written in Java and it has a plugin architecture in order to support different mobile device platforms (WAP, J2ME, PalmOS, etc). I want to give the freedom to anybody write their plugins, even closed-source, as long as the tool itself is not modified for them to run. This implies that GPL cannot be used. At the same time, I do not want any closed-source tool based in MultiMAD code, so licenses such as the Apache one cannot be used. Am I right in my assumptions regarding licenses? What license do you suggest?"
The Linux kernel does not explicitly allow binary modules. This is a commonly repeated myth. Please see Linus's posting on LKML for the truth behind this.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
'when you GPLv2 some code, you are probably granting the right to dynalink proprietary modules to your work.'
Yep, I agree google for 'Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison' and you should have no doubt that dynamic linking and GPLv2 are ok. This guy is obviously worried that the GPL doesn't allow linking (as many people seem to be) so I advised that he use the GPL with a clause that allows for plugin modules.
The kernel license says...
"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".
I think it would be ok for the person who asked the question to put a similar clause in his license and use GPL.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
What about using (*lowers voice to a whisper*) the BSD license? (*hears gasps of horror coming from the audience*)
Before the GPL zealots come screaming out of the woodwork on this one, there's something they (and you) should know. The BSD license actually includes a copyright notice. Have a look at it and see. For FreeBSD as an example, the copyright is held by the CSRG.
That means that in using it as a license, you don't actually surrender your copyright. (Unlike certain FUD which is spread by individuals who remain nameless states) You don't get a patent, no...but you *do* get copyright, in the originally intended sense of the word. This to me is a demonstration of why the GPL *is* both unnecessary and repressive, despite claims to the contrary.
What you get the copyright to is your own work; what you're giving other people is the right to make *derivative* works. They get copyright on derivative works, yes...but they don't get the copyright on your work itself. So if you wanted to, you could use a non-viral license (the BSD license is only one option...www.opensource.org lists many) without having to assume that you're automatically putting your work in the public domain.
My single biggest objection to Richard Stallman is that I believe that *his* philosophy is the only acceptable one. To me the use of the phrase "GPL compatible" in particular sounds a lot like the campaign Microsoft had a number of years back where they were certifying things as "Windows compatible" or "made for Windows 95."
Stallman claims to be about freedom...but look closer. What he's really about is forming a cultural/social movement with himself at the head. That isn't anywhere near as much about freedom as it is about agreeing with whatever he decrees.