Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Comparing Open Source Licenses
El-ahrairah asks:
"I've been working on several projects over
the course of the last few years, each of
which have reached the stage where we are
planning their release to the public under
Open Source licenses. I have done quite a
bit of research into various OS models, but
I am nevertheless no legal scholar. what I
am wondering is this: what are the pros and
cons of various licenses, are any
YAOSL (yet another Open Source licence)
models valuable, does a line by line
comparison of longstanding and new licenses
exist?"
I had an idea for a licence. It allowed either me or the contributor to licence under a different licence if our code outweiged the rest of the code. Also, the package had to be released under a different name, though all the files could be called the same....and credit had to be given to the origional developer unless the code was used to make something else.
I am no lawyer so I couldn't quite clear it up.
Interesting, I'm an even more selfish bastard.
The only way I'll give away my code for free is if I know that nobody is profiting from my work.
I dislike the GPL in that regard, and much prefer a modified form of the BSD license which says program distribution and use is free of charge.
The article was discussed here a week ago
I've read the article noted above in full and I would recommend against giving weight to it. While it does do a good job of pointing out the merits in a BSD style license, it contains a number of factualy inaccurate statements about the GPL.
Hopefully reading the rest of the comments will make clear how untrue that is. We certainly do *not* all agree that wasting our hard work on subsidizing more proprietary software is a good idea.
GPL proponents forbid hoarding because we believe it's *wrong*, not because that's a popular stance - it isn't, really, and I think we realize it probably repels more participants than it attracts, and That's Okay.
His anti-GPL arguments don't even make sense, unless you've already accepted his worldview that proprietary software is a good thing and should be supported (which of course GPL supporters don't).
IMHO freeware is the worst kind of proprietary software - when it sucks, the only people who can possibly fix it can't be offered an incentive to do so. I require giving out the right to give out the source so I don't accidentally add to the volume of closed-source crap infesting our world.
Granting more rights later is easy, but if there are any rights you aren't confident in wanting to grant, think twice about doing it. You may not be able to revoke them.
I have an on-line game written in a combination
...
of javascript and dynamic html which I have
tried to base an open-source project around. I
have also tried to come up with a license
suitable for this.
Most of the correspondance I've received so far
has suggested that I change to using GNU
licences, and I'm on the verge of doing this.
But
The LGPL seems too specific for real libraries.
As I understand it, an LGPL license has
restrictions on it to make it independent of
data (tables etc.) in the calling software. But
the javascript libraries I've written are
extremely tied in with the HTML pages that call
them, so I don't know if this violates that
licence.
Also I would be happy to allow a commercial
organization to run a version on a subscription
based site. Obviously, if they were obliged to
allow subscribers to mirror the content to their
own machines this would interfere with their
business model. So, for say the GPL, does
hosting a web-site count as distributing it or
merely running it? The first case would oblige
hosts to make the site available free, while, as
I understand it, I think if it is merely running
the code, they would not be obliged to let
players make a local copy.
All feedback gratefuly received.
philip jones
(You can find a copy of my suggested license on
the site at
http://members.xoom.com/synaesmedia/interstar/)
That's just stupid. FreeBSD has excellent Linux binary compatibility. It would not be hard to make a distribution based on the FreeBSD kernel that appears to be a Linux distribution to all but the most inquisitive user. That would serve as well in any flooding scheme as a real Linux system.
All of the licenses have their merits. The only copyleft license that really makes sense is the GPL; otherwise, you loose interoperability with 90% of the other code out there. The only type of non-copyleft free licenses that I know of that have significant differences are artistic, BSD, and just putting the thing in public domain.
If you choose something that is not GPL/LGPL, make sure you add a clause allowing your code to be incorporated into GPL products under the GPL or LGPL. Few things are as annoying as having two pieces of code you want to integrate under incompatible licenses.
If you go for a BSD-style license, consider removing the abnoxious credit-where-its-due/advertising clause. That clause basically results in the condition that people can incorporate your code into commercial products, but cannot incorporate them into products under any other free license.
Personally, I've always defaulted to either GPL or LGPL, depending on whether I wanted other people to link their code into it. I respect public domainish licenses. I would recommend against half-assed attempts at a free license (Qt-style patchwork, Netscape NPL, etc.) Those are usually flawed, and you'll end up loosing a lot of the benefits of free software.
- pmitros@ [CUT-THE-SPAM] mit.edu
It's really quite unenforcable. Also, most free software developers won't work on a project with a half-assed license like this one.
The LGPL solves the linking problem. That's what it's there for.
I know Richard. He won't put in any obnoxious clauses about GNU/Linux or what not. Either way, you're free to stay with the GPL 2.0. He can add freedoms; he can't take them away. Also, if all the copyright holders agree, you can always change licenses.
If the I get a piece of your code that lets me draw a circle, and I advertise "my program can draw a circle," than I need to incorporate the annoying advertising crap.
It says: "All material mentioning features or..."
Check out O'Reilly's "Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution". It has several chapters (by different authors) that deal with licensing issues in considerable detail.
Two good questions .... here is several answers:
"1) Why is it such a bad thing if MS sold a decent OS? "
The quality of MS's software is only a part of the issue. It's what they do with it. MS uses software not to address customer needs, but first and foremost, to serve it's own business plan. Software is a weapon in MS's land. It is used to lock in future sales, to corrupt emerging standards that they do not control, and to disable any possible competitive software. A better technical OS would just give MS better weapons to kill everyone else.
I very much doubt that the residents of Hiroshima marveled at the effectivness of the bomb as it fell in their midst.
_______________________________________________
"Why is it that Linux users seem absolutely convinced they would adopt the Microsoft version if Microsoft released a proprietary fork of it?
"
Current users most likely would NOT use the MS version. But the new users without the a knowledge of the technical and ethical issues involved would not understand the difference. An MS Linux would be deployed, promissing the performance improvements of Linux, but preserving the "weapon's of destruction" strategy that has given MS the desktop monopoly. They would then haaave the means of extending that monopoly control, and EXCESSIVE profit to new markets (i.e. server and exterprise applications.)
Hello all--
.well, I believe
My take on the BSD v. GPL. .
the GPL values the code over the coder. It wants
the code to always be free to the detriment of the
future coder's freedom. This is fine as long
as people understand what they're getting into.
GPL'd code is workable for companies as long as
it doesn't provide them a key competitive advantage.
In other words, if a company using Linux notices
that their particularly ethernet card is somewhat
slow and has a developer fix it. They lose nothing
by releasing the fix under the GPL. In fact, they
gain because they don't have to maintain the fix in
their source tree.
On the other hand, if a company writes ip
load balancing software and they've written
several kernel modules to do so, it would be
economic suicide to provide these modules
under the GPL. Support agreements aren't going
to cut it revenue-wise. Similarly, the need
for custom-code isn't there.
For these reasons, I believe the GPL is most
For this reason, I believe GPL'd code is most
beneficial to the developer working on custom
"in-house" code. The "business rules" are never
released to the outside world, but infrastructure
improvements can be.
An exception to this would be development
environments. Potentially, a GPL'd development
environment would allow for people to create a
reasonable revenue stream from custom consulting
and training. Unfortunately, custom consulting
is a difficult business model if you wish to
_grow_ using a T&M pricing structure. This is
mainly due to an inability to hire billable
people quickly enough.
On the other hand, BSD and artistic licenses
are extremely useful (for obvious reasons) commercially.
In my mind, it comes down to the coder v. the
code. The BSD license values coders over code.
The GPL values code over coders. Which one is more important
probably depends on your viewpoint?
Personally, I like the LGPL concept where you use the
library as you wish, but library improvements
must be made available as source code. It seems
to inhabit a reasonable middleground between
the BSD and GPL licenses.
Sorry so long.
--AC
This would be funny:
Micro$oft makes a product that uses the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack, and then remove all those annoying tests for error conditions and buffer sizes, and then says the software uses code from UCB. It would crash big time...
It is a rotten thing that someone could, using a part of another person's research, find the cure for AIDS and then patent it. Peharps the original researcher has AIDS, and without his research the patenter couldn't have found the cure, but now he has to pay a lot of money for a fruit of his own research (believe me, a cure for AIDS would be very expensive), while the patenter makes lots of money for himself.
Scientific development occurs because knowledge is shared. It works because work is returned to the community.
I think that if you want the software you use to be free (that is, to come with code), than the software you write (specially if it uses free software) should also be free.
What the GPL does is to assert that whatever software you licence with it will remain free. It says "Sure, you are free to use my software, and modify it if you will, but I require you to make these modifications and what software you make with my code to be free as well."
Do you like the software you use to be free? Do you want access to the source code? If so, how do you justify the transformation from free software to proprietary? How do you justify changing code the author wanted to be free into code that is not? The GPL makes sense because it is an equalizer (sp?) of rights. You want something free? Here you go, but make sure you build free things from it.
Eol_Of_Urnst (eol_of_urnst@yahoo.com)
(couldn't login though... must have forgotten my pass)
Public domain is the removal of copyright, not a license.
If people do not remove the portion in their copyright about "later versions", Stallman has to ability to change the license whenever he feels like it:
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Release of a modified version of the license is not possible; it is not GPL'd.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
I believe you might need to carefully re-read the license.
An A.C.
P.S. I am not the original poster.
And you aren't convincing anybody with ad hominem between anonymous people.
There are links to many licences and some other related stuff in the licencing page of Gary's Encyclopedia.
It's completely unnecessary. Just use the GPL for your code, and create your own proprietary licencing arrangements for anyone who wants to use your code in their proprietary product.
Since you've said that you want to be selective about what proprietary uses can be made of your code, the terms of your proprietary licensing will need to be customised anyway, so there is no single license that will meet your needs. Just create a tailored contract between you and the proprietary publisher as these situations arise.
What you *should* do, however, if you intend to make this option available, is:
1) Advertise the fact that alternate licensing arrangements can be negotiated. Otherwise, some proprietary developers may assume you'd be unwilling to let them use your code on other terms.
2) Make sure you actually have the *right* to license the complete source code on non-GPL terms. If you accept outside contributions to your GPLed software project, the result will be a "collaborative work" which can only be distributed under the GPL (since you will only have GPL-licensed patches), unless all the contributors agree to something else. If you don't want that, you'll need to have patch submitters assign copyright to you, and then you can re-license the whole on proprietary terms (the FSF does this for their GNU software, although for different reasons). Whether such an arrangement between you and your contributors is ethical or not is another matter (it might depend on how much of the code was originally yours).
The BSDish licenses are the exact *opposite* of what you want, since their main purpose is to make your code publically available for proprietary use without compensation, which is what you say you're trying to avoid.
yes. . .that's why GPL'd code works well for
people doing custom development for internal
use.
I think BSD'd reference implementations are a good idea, unless hurting the proprietary authors (which I'm otherwise in favor of) is more important than getting your new format/protocol/whatever widely and correctly implemented.
The adviso is cute, but "distribution is prohibited" doesn't really compare to Free Software licenses.
And you can't charge unreasonably for the work in giving out the source. And IIRC there's some doubt as to whether you can refuse to give source to people who didn't get binaries *from you*.
There are people out there (MOSIX, NeXT) who don't really want to give out source, but will if they have to. So I suppose it's an evaluation of how many of those we have vs. how many will give out derived works even when they don't have to.
This was under these terms (non-commercial use) that Linus released/intended to release the first versions of Linux. If he didn't switch to GPL, we'll probably all be running some *BSD now (RedHat, VAResearch, Suse, ... wouldn't exist).
This would be fairly close to the QPL, wouldn't it?
Restrictively Unrestrictive: The GPL License in Software Development
RMS has never written any kind of naming restriction into a license, AFAIK, since that doesn't materially affect others' rights to use the code. And unless you're assembling yet another instance of Project GNU, he wouldn't even care.
I do wish the GPL had stronger requirements for effectively informing recipients of their rights. There are still too many people who don't know what they can do, in part because of the community's mysterious shame about Project GNU.
This assumes that steering people is something you want to do. A license does not have to be a form of social engineering.
If I release something as free software, I want it to become part of the generally available pool of knowledge of mankind. Hence, I make it public domain.
When picking a license you should consider who you want or expect to use your software, and what for...
If you expect that projects under GPL will want to use some or all of your project, you need to remain GPL-compatible. Modern BSD (no advertising clause) and all GNU licenses are GPL-compatible
If you expect that proprietary projects will want to use your code, and that's OK (because you're trying to popularize a standard, or protocol, not save the world) then you should choose LGPL (if they just need to link with it) or BSD or even Public Domain, so that they can just use it without worrying about lawyers...
If you just expect people to use it, with you or your team doing all or most of the maintenance, then you could pick any license you like. If users don't like it, they'll explain why and since you still own the copyright you can change to a different/ better license later.
Another thing to consider (but less important) is - who do I owe for all this?
Linus for example, has said several times that his decision to license Linux under the GPL was influenced by the high quality of GNU tools like GCC, which were essential to continuing kernel development. If there's a tool which was a godsend when you were working on these projects, consider whether you should mimic the licensing of that tool.
Finally - note that some people have found it appropriate to make things available under two or more licenses. Perl, AFAIK, is an example of such a project.
Incidentally this book has just been released under the GPL. You can fetch it from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/to c.html
All of the discussion and ranting about the various licenses leaves me convinced of one thing ....
If Linux had been under a BSD style license, MS would have an easy and clear way of destroying it as a competitive threat. They would create a prorietary fork, flood the market with it, and we would all live in an MS world for the indefinate future.
Many people happen to like the BSD credit where due clause.
If someone takes my code and sells it as part of their product, the *least* they can do is be gracious enough to acknowledge my contribution to what they're selling.
What the BSD license basically does is make this a requirement. Is this obnoxious? Well, if someone was going to do the right thing anyway and give credit to the people who actually wrote the code, then this creates no real additional burden. If someone was going to *not* provide credit where it's due, well, not giving any recognition either credit or financial to the people who's code you're selling is pretty obnoxious, don't you think?
Also, you misinterpreted the wording of this clause in a major way. It says:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement
Suppose I write code for a specific cool-neat-feature and you put it in your product. This clause does *not* require that all advertisements for your product contain the credit statement. It only requires that advertisements that specifically mentions my code or the use of my code acknowledge that it's my code. That's a big difference.
Basically, software licenses in free software are a form of social engineering. Your choice of license should steer people towards doing what you really want them to do.
Some examples of goals to consider:
* Credit given to you. Beyond simply asking people to give credit where it's due, you also might want to have a way to refute when other people claim to have written your code. (it happens)
* Integration into commerical products. Some people want this, for example in order to get the code/feature/technology more widely used. Some people don't want this, for example to prevent others from making a profit off your work.
* Control over the "official" distribution. Some people want to make sure that the software named "foo" is theirs; if someone else creates a derivative, they should name it something other than "foo" so as to not confuse things and potentially hurt your reputation.
* As a general rule, you want to disclaim everything you can and even things you can't. Otherwise some scumbag will sue you for their misuse of your free software.
The first item basically summarizes the goals of the BSD license: prevent others from claiming that they instead wrote the code, and to require others to give credit where it's due. The BSD license is very typical of licenses that allow commercial products to take your code.
The second item's other side basically summarizes the goal of the GPL: preventing your free code from becoming someone else's non-free code and someone else's profit.
The third item basically summarizes the goal of the Artistic license: prevent bozos from releasing branch versions of your code with the same name and making you look bad in the eyes of users who confusedly thought their version was your program.
Reputation protection.
There are a whole lot of yet-another-licenses out there. Most of them suck and should be avoided. In particular, they have served to greatly confuse what used to be a relatively simple thing. Use a standard license if at all possible. Really. Better to have slightly less optimal legal terms that are well understood than optimal legal terms that people can't decipher. By the time lawyers are reading the licenses, something is usually wrong.
Many of the new generation of "open source" licenses are "you have to be free, but we don't have to be free" licenses, which might also be phrased as "we want other people to write code for our product for free" licenses. Don't go there.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I keep hearing how the BSD license is "more free". That's true, but misleading.
Would it be a good thing if I were free to deny you your First Amendment rights? No. My freedoms end where your freedoms begin.
I need to be forced into the small inconvenience of re-releasing my modifications to afford others the major freedom of seeing the source.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
The original author is totally free to choose a license.
If the author chooses the GPL, he is removing choice from the next level of users--they MUST redistribute the source.
But if he chooses BSD, he is removing choice from users two levels down. If the first tier of users didn't redist the source (since they don't have to), the second tier gets zilch.
I happen to think that forcing redistribution on the first tier is less onerous than removing source access to the second tier....and I think you do, too.
For instance, suppose MS used some BSD code in NT, but modified it a little so it didn't work quite how you wanted. Wouldn't you be a little frustrated that you (the 2nd tier user) couldn't modify the source to work correctly especially since you CAN modify the originals?
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
"With the BSD license, each "tier" of user has a choice."
No. They don't. Each tier depends upon the goodwill of the tier above.
It's like the US Bill of Rights. If we were totally (BSD-style) Free to do whatever we wanted, there would be a few Free people at the top and a bunch of peons/slaves at the bottom. This is because the more powerful could do whatever they wanted to the rest of us.
Instead we have checks and balances. We have a few minor Freedoms curtailed (murder not allowed, slavery not allowed, re-release of source code required) so that major Freedoms (life, pursuit of happiness, use of source code) are available to everyone.
The GPL is not infective, it's protective.
Posted by the.big.cheese:
Why not use the Cartesian Burro-Friendly License? It works as a standalone license or in combination with other more headache-inducing licenses. See http://www.revoltingdevelopment.com/cbfl01.html for details.
So you see, the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with Linux being GPL'd. The problem is that people chose to call a GNU OS with Hurd replaced by Linux, "Linux". The same thing would have happened if Linux was licensed differently.
If you don't want people using your code in their proprietary programs use the GPL (or the LGPL). Otherwise, use the X license.
Also, the comparison between the GNU/Linux thing and the BSD advertising clause isn't really fair, since the GNU/Linux debate has nothing to do with licensing, it's simply a question of what to call a system made of a huge number of components made by different people.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
...as the software it is going to be used together with, unless you have a really good reason not to. It gives the least problems.
I.e., if you are writting a Perl program, use the Artistic License. If you are writting a Gnome program, use the GPL. If you are writting a Mozilla plug-in, use the MPL. Und so weiter.
> All GPL'ed stuff belongs to Stallman, read the license.
You can find the GPL here. If you actually do read it, you will find that noplace within it does Stallman, nor the FSF, claim copyright nor special privilege over GPLed software.
The license does contain some passage specific to software copyrighted by the FSF, for instance the following:
# 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into
# other free programs whose distribution conditions
# are different, write to the author to ask for permission.
# For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software
# Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation;
# we sometimes make exceptions for this.
Read that carefully. FSF does not claim to be the author nor the copyright holder of all GPLed software. Your claim is at best a myth, and at worst a lie which comes close to being FUD.
If you object to some particular provision in the GPL, release your software under a modified version. You could, for instance, strip out the versioning provision (the part which specifies that the licensed software may be licensed under newer versions of the GPL) or add a BSD-style credit-due provision.
In the future, when you call on others to RTFM, please don't make claims which contradict the text of the relevant FM.
Um.... when did either of your examples change their licensing? Perl is distributable under either the Artistic (which is generally considered legally dubious but the duality does seem to make the raving anti-GNU forces calm) or the GPL and XFree is of course released under the very BSDish X license because of the vast quantities of X code in it.
Democrat delenda est
INteresting disconnect there. YOu don't want people profiting from your work but prefer the BSD license. Doh!
Ever looked at the docs to a Cisco router? Yup, they took the BSD codebase and stuffed it in a little box. Granted that over the years I'm sure they have modified the hell out of it so that very little of the original remains, but the license requires the credit in the docs to this day. How many billions did they make off of the BSD license? Granted they could also have used GPL code but they would have had to give their changes back to the community which I suspect all reading this would have considered a square deal.
Democrat delenda est
No way this thread can answer the question for you unless you tell us what YOU want to accomplish.
As for me, I'm a selfish bastard so I'd never consider anything but the GPL or LGPL for any code I happen to generate. The only reason I'd let others have my stuff for free is to be able to get patches back.
Others have different motives so would pick a BSD license. I can tell you that as a practical matter your choice is between a BSDish or GPL license. Any other sillyness in a license tends to just kill a project. It might not seem logical, but it is true.
Democrat delenda est
Using known licenses encourages developers--there's a trust of what's known. Plus, I'd rather code than read licenses.
Check the copyright, specifically:
"Freeing the Source" is copyright © 1998 Netscape Communications Corporation. It is printed here with permission from Netscape
Communications Corporation.
"Giving It Away" is copyright © 1999 O'Reilly & Associates. All rights reserved to O'Reilly & Associates and Red Hat Software.
All other material is copyright © 1999 O'Reilly & Associates. All rights reserved.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Given that copyright law relates to when one is allowed to copy something, attempting to restrict someone's use of a program once they have legally obtained a copy is not something that you can do with a copyright based software license (AFAIK).
Hence, If I download a copy of your code, to have a play with it (i.e. obtain a legal copy). Then, once I have the legal copy, it seems to me that I can quite legally use it to run my business --- I just cannot copy it further, and distribute it.
The only way to enforce this, is to get me to enter into a contract prior to giving me access to the code, in which I agree not to use the software for anything commercial.
Dan Bernsein's take on the situation is probably worth reading, since I'm not a lawyer.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
FUD implies an intention to mislead people. I suppose technically one could argue that any argument made without a clear understanding of the facts could potentially cause FUD, but that's just blurring the lines a bit much.
The people afraid of TT being bought out by MS were bringing up a legitimate concern. It just happens that this concern was already being addressed in the licencing.
FUD implies to me that these people were intentionally bringing up points which were not legitimate, or that they were misleading people in order to bolster support for their favorite competing product. I really don't think this is the case.
There were a good number of people arguing on both sides of the TT licencing issues who were guilty of not being clearly informed. By arguing that people who reject KDE based on the TT license are guilty of spreading FUD, you could just as easily say that if a magical hole in the licencing is found and everything falls to hell, that the people arguing on the part of KDE are suddenly guilty of creating pro MS FUD? Why not? They were arguing that Gnome was inferior to KDE and that KDE's licencing issues weren't an issue.
And this post is not FUD! It's an opinion.
That would make it non-open source/non-free. The Alladin Public License does something like that.
It is also an evaluation over how many derived works will be created, and what benefit that will lead to. I know that I have done quite a bit of FreeBSD code on paid time due to products we would never have made if FreeBSD had been under the GPL. Approx 80% of the mods I did to FreeBSD to support our product has been contributed back; the rest are either not cleaned up enough (so I won't contribute it back due to being ashamed of the state of the code, stylewise), or it is special performance tweaks for just our situation, with no value for anybody except people that would want to create a competing product.
When it comes to both MOSIX and NeXT: Both of these are examples of people that has misunderstood what they could and could not do, and has done work on GPLed codebases only due to misunderstanding. Do we really want our source of software to be people that have been fooled?
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Example: If you goal is to destroy the market for properitary software, use the GPL. If you goal is something else (like my goal, maximizing the amount of good open source software), choose a license that aligns with that.
From my analysis, the GPL is directly counter-productive to my goal - it is, however, effective for what seems to be Stallman's goals - forcing all software to be free software. (See especially the end of the manifesto).
A common fallacy is to believe that "all software is free software" is equivalent to "maximize the amont of free software" - it is not.
Personally, I usually choose to use a BSD-style license, in order to optimize the amount of use my sourcebase gets. If somebody use my code in a properitary product - great! They're working on the code, and are likely to send back bug-fixes and enhancements - and if they don't, I'm no worse off than I would be if they didn't use the code.
Besides, usage of free code is much more common in small, innovative comapnies than in the large juggernauts (who can usually just cross-license code anyway). Effectively, I help the innovative part of the commercial segment, kicking the juggernauts in the balls - which doesn't exactly detract from the experience :-)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
I would have GPLed it already but for these concerns.
Opinions?
DWR is Ajax for Java
I think it's just the way MS tends to operate, there drive is not to sell cool technology, but rather to dominate whatever market they enter and not compete in that market, but destroy the competition, so that people have little choice but to go with the MS offering. That's why we avoid anything MS, we like to have a choice.
Why is it that Linux users seem absolutely convinced they would adopt the Microsoft version if Microsoft released a proprietary fork of it?I would chalk that up to irrational fear. I'm sure most Linux users would avoid the MS offering. But the same FUD was used against KDE, that MS was certain to buy out Troll Tech, and would own Linux if people started using KDE
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
SETI@home. Check it out.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
> Whether you like to have your program possibly being turned closed source is a matter of personal
> belief, but do NOT tolerate this obnoxious advertising clause! If you decide to use the BSD
> license, do the community a service and remove that clause from your license, or consider another
> license.
Examples are the XFree86-style license or the Modified BSD license.
See for more information about this topic the BSD License Problem article.
For graphics or text you might want to look at the OpenContent License (OPL).
For free software licenses see the Debian GNU/Linux Waht does free mean? page which lists all the commen licenses.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
OK, IMHO, BSD License is shit. (Remember, this is my opinion =). And i'm a BSD fan to, but that license is nasty, imagine working on something, then having some asshole company turn around and sell your work, without giving you a thing. Heh, not my work pal.
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
Does anyone have/know of a list of licenses? It would be certainly useful so we could compare them.
Mainly I'm looking for something to release not software, but graphics and other intellectual property under, and I was wondering if there was a precedent for that. But the list of licenses would be nice for any code I happen to write, too.
How 'bout the GNU LGPL?
GNU Lesser General Public License
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Also, it should be noted that the BSD license contains an obnoxious advertising clause that forces you to include "This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors." with all advertisments for your own product.
Whether you like to have your program possibly being turned closed source is a matter of personal belief, but do NOT tolerate this obnoxious advertising clause! If you decide to use the BSD license, do the community a service and remove that clause from your license, or consider another license.
It is quite clear that you only have to give due credit when the software with said clause is being totted as a feature of whatever you are advertising.
Yes. This is a problem. For example, if you have thirty different credit clauses in your TCP/IP network stack, and you say that you support TCP/IP networking, you'll have a big credit block in every ad.
If you want credit, ask for it on a splash screen or in the manual. This doesn't turn into advertising gridlock, and nobody really minds adding an extra few pages to their documentation. The credit clause wouldn't be so obnoxious if it only said "UC Berkley"--it's when every single developer wants separate credit.
The best license choices are (in no particular order) the GPL, LGPL, XFree86 and fixed BSD license.
The GPL
The GNU General Public License is used for Linux and GCC. It allows anyone to make copies of your code--and change things as they wish--but it doesn't allow one user to take these rights away from another user. Use the GPL if you want every user of your program to always have source available.
The LGPL
The GNU Lesser (or Library) General Public License is like the GPL, but allows proprietary software to link against a free library. The Linux C library uses the LGPL. Use this if you want your code to remain free, but don't care about who uses it in their program.
The XFree86 License
This license allows anybody to do anything with your code, but it tries to prevent people from suing you. For example, a software company could take your program and turn it into a proprietary product without giving you any money. The X Window System uses this license.
The BSD License
The BSD license is sort of like the XFree86 license, but older versions had a bad bug. The older BSD licenses required certain phrases to appear in advertisements for the software. Because of this, it used to be illegal to advertise a NetBSD CD-ROM without giving credit to 75 people in every ad. Newer versions of the BSD license often remove the obnoxious advertising clause. If you want to use the BSD license, it's probably safer to use the XFree86 license instead--they both do the same thing, but no version of the XFree86 license contains bugs.
Custom Licenses
Avoid these if at all possible. Writing new open source licenses is very, very difficult and most people (even good lawyers) screw it up. The licenses listed above should cover most possibilities, and each one is known to work.
There was a company in Australia who suggested a similar license; there was an old slashdot article on it.
One thing which I didn't see pointed out then, but which I think also applies to your license idea, is what the Securities and Exchanges Commission (or the analogue in your nation, the SEC is a US organization) would say about it. Specifically, this license model could, I hypothesize, be turned into a pyramid scheme. Assuming that every programmer who adds code to a program is entitled to a piece of the money from a given end user, a pyramid payment structure could be built.
There are legal pyramid structures in business (e.g., Amway, although they were investigated for being a pyramid scheme -- apparently they got off); the critereon is that you have a "real" product. So assuming you can convince a judge that this is a real-life piece of software, you should be okay. Anyway, something think about (IMHO IANAL B/F/F).
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
The GPL perfectly protects the author. It ensures that people can use the code, but not make it their own.
The BSD license is nice, until someone makes some changes, and then releases the program as binaries only. Sure, they may be required to say that you wrote some of the early code, but that's a small benefit.
The reason the GPL applies to all future revisions of that source code is so that people can't steal your work.
You the author always have the ability to do anything you want with your source code. You are protected by the GPL because the GPL makes sure that you always do have the ability to keep someone from closing your open source project.
If BSD had such a clause, Microsoft couldn't have 'borrowed' network code from them and put it into the closed monstrosity that is Windows. They'd have had to either make the networking subsystem open source, or write their own code. I don't know about you, but if I write code, I want to make sure it won't be used by monopolistic jerks.
The *most important* part of the GPL is that it applies to all future versions. All of Stallman's other accomplishments pale before this. Keeping code free is the chief thing which makes people trust projects like Linux. (Who would dev for it, if MS could come along, make a few KDE themes, and call it Win 2000?)
I was thinking about OSS licenses after reading the "Restrictively Unrestrictive" article. The mother of a friend of mine is a published SF/fantasy author; some other friends of hers include a band on an indy label. As a result, I've picked up some stories here and there about the troubles artists sometimes have trying to get artistic integrity and a decent paycheck to coexist.
When these two topic threads collided in my brain, the idea that sprung forth was this: Essentially the FreeBSD license, but with an extra clause stating that if someone wants to incorporate part of the licensed code into a product to be sold for money, they need the programmer's permission to do so. The programmer reserves the rights under the license to negotiate conditions for the codes use: if he likes the company and feels charitable, he can just tell them to go on and do it; if he has ethical problems with the company or what they might do with the code, he could flat out refuse; or for various points between, he could negotiate payment for the code, either as a flat fee or a royalty (knowing more about the lit. and music business than the software business, I have no idea if the royalty thing would ever happen).
Also, it should be clearly stated that previous arrangements for commercial distribution IN NO WAY set a precedent for future agreements (this would hopefully protect the programmer when he tells WeSaySo Inc. that he wants sagans of dollars for his code, and they yell and scream about how he let Applix use it all for just a free commecial-use license).
Thoughts, anyone? Do I have a good idea here, or should I just lay off the crack?
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sungla
I presume the these open source licenses will let me profit from (for example) GPL'd code if I do it without distributing it. As an example, lets say someone writes some intelligent code for predicting stock price movements. Can I start a company using this code with my own closed-source improvments? It seems to me that as long as I am not making money by distributing the code I should be able to do this? Anyone know better than me?
Well, I wouldn't really call that a FreeBSD like license, since the right to commercially use the code is the foundation in the FreeBSD license idea. More like some combination of GPL and FreeBSD with more restrictions.
The FreeBSD license allows anyone to use the code any way they want. The GPL prevents proprietary use of the code, but does not prevent inclusion into commercial products. The GPL does not prevent you from making a separate license deal if you wish to sell proprietary rights to companies you like tho.
Also, you do not need a precedent, this is implicit from your ownership of the copyright.
Your idea is good, it's just sorta redunant; both the points are already implicit through copyright law. If you release code under GPL, you still retain those rights, with the only difference that people who will abide by the GPL have the rights set forth in that license.
IANAL, whatever.
Well, not quite. Section 2b reads as you bolded, but IMO, that means that you have to distribute the work under the _terms_ of the GPL, not under the GPL in itself. That means that you can distribute BSD code combined with GPL code, and as long as they are distinct (different source files, for example), you can separate the BSD code later again and not be subject to the GPL. The combined work has to be under the terms of the GPL, but as long as any alternate licenses do not conflict with those terms they can retain their original license.
But that doesnt really affect the point. If you choose to distribute code under GPL, to which you retain copyright, nothing prevents you from selling that code under a different license to someone else. As copyright holder you can license it however you want how many times you want to whoever you want.
Also, you should be careful with how you would write such a license that you are considering. The most tricky part is what constitutes use in a commercial product. Is it if your code is sold? Would that include CDROM distributors? Not-for-profit organizations who sell CD's at cost? Web based advertizement schemes charging nothing for the code? Only proprietary use? Or opensource use too? It's very easy to end up with a license that does not allow distribution at all due to what constitutes selling the code.
Oh, and IANAL, anyway.
> GPL protects the rights of the author
> BSD license is more free
I do not think that that describes the crucial difference. I fact it is borderline to being simply wrong.
Both licenses aim at protecting the author(s), but they have different ideas of what constitutes "the author(s)".
- BSD assumes an small central group ("cathedral") of authors (such as CSRG), who want to retain control over the end product.
- GPL assumes multiple/many distributed ("bazaar") authors who want to attract more participants by guaranteeing no hording.
So it is mainly an centralism/anarchism thing, an issue of social organisation style.
To select a license for your project, read above two descriptions and select which authorship model you are more comfortable with. Then use the license developed for that type. Now what about that for choice?
--
--
Intellectual Property is Intellectual Robbery
thats "blah (less than sign) 5"... my less than got stripped out... :-(
You might want to consider Liberal Source Software as a licensing model. We haven't produced an actual license yet, but its in the works. See here for details.
Briefly, the idea is to distribute software with source code and a license that allows experimental use, modification, and the distribution of modified copies, but requires payment for any kind of "real use", for whatever value of "real" is appropriate to the software. In most cases that would be commercial use, but for example with a game it would mean actually playing the game. A key part of the scheme is that the revenue is shared amongst the developers in proportion to their contributions.
This was extensively discussed on Slashdot a while ago, under the heading "Commercial Open Source Software". Some people thought it was a good idea, others did not like it. Since then I've added some more explanations and clarifications based on the comments I received.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
- BSD assumes an small central group ("cathedral") of authors (such as CSRG), who want to retain control over the end product.
Yeah? I thought it was the BSD license who would let anyone do whatever they want with the code, while GPL not only imposes restrictions to it's distribution (source must be made available) but also to your freedom in changing it (all changes should be distributed under the same license).
Don't FUD.
(8-DCS)
The older BSD licenses required certain phrases to appear in advertisements for the software.
This is FUD spread by the obnoxious GNU people.
Here is the clause:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: [...]
It is quite clear that you only have to give due credit when the software with said clause is being totted as a feature of whatever you are advertising.
(8-DCS)
You forgot to mention that after the Microsoft flooded the market with the "proprietary fork", and all Linux users started using it for unknown reasons, we would end up in a world where the dominant OS didn't actually s*ck.
There are two things *I* would like to know, though:
1) Why is it such a bad thing if MS sold a decent OS? and
2) Why is it that Linux users seem absolutely convinced they would adopt the Microsoft version if Microsoft released a proprietary fork of it?
(8-DCS)
Let me quote:
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
And now, let me quote you: with all advertisments for your own product.
It is very explicit that you must only place that comment *IF YOU MENTION THE CODE YOU ARE USING IN THE ADVERTISEMENT*. For example, the new OS by Apple need only have that in it's advertisement if it said "includes NetBSD code!" or something like that.
In other words, it's a claim credit clause. If they are going to use the presence of the code as advertisement, they need to give credit to it in the advertisement.
Stop spreading baseless FUD.
(8-DCS)
Oops. I seem to have mispasted something and missed it.
The link I screwed up on.
Sorry.
The BSD-style license FreeBSD uses in fact does remove that particular clause. You must only give credit to the original developer(s) of the software in any binary reproductions of the original product.
First off, IANAL, so I may be wrong on any of this.
Just last night I was looking over each of the licenses. I may have misinterpreted the GPL because it is very wordy and lawyerish, but I know I understood the FreeBSD, its only got 2 clauses.
Basically w/ FreeBSD you agree not to take credit for something you didn't write, but otherwise gives them full control over the code.
The GPL however says that if GPL'd code is used in a program, the resulting program must be released under the GPL.
From the GPL:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
IMHO, this does not give people the most freedom, just forces people to play along with the FSF. It seems like a virus, because if someone wants to use a part of someone else's GPL'd code, they have to make their program GPL. That is not always in the 2nd party's interest. However, if the programmer WANTS to force his social ideas on other people who may find a use for the code, then by all means, the GPL is the way to do it.
I agree with the original poster in that a modified FreeBSD license would be the best way to go... and I had also thought of doing the exact thing last night.
I thought, "my ideal license would be a FreeBSD with a clause stating that if the code was going to be used in a commercial product, they must negotiate with the original author for permission".
~unyun~
People go around saying things like 'GPL means you can't link with non-GPL stuff' Now IANAL but I don't think it does, and the confusion is not good.
The GPL doesn't govern what you do internally with copylefted code. As it states,
The only question comes when you want to distribute a work based on copylefted code. Then you need to be sure that you comply with all of the modification and distribution terms of the license. The GPL thus does not prevent a person from downloading libreadline (which is licensed under the GPL) and combining it with their own non-free work, as long as they do not distribute the combined work. If they do want to distribute it, then the terms of all components must be made compatible with the GPL.
The LGPL may also be relevant. It does permit an author to distribute non-free works which link against a LGPL library. The non-free work can be distributed under the authors own terms, as long as it contains no library-derived code. As the license states,
Again, if the library and the program are linked, then the resulting derived work must be distributed under a compatibly free license.
Therefore, I would argue that while there are still significant responsibilities to the author when he links against GPL or LGPL code, it is incorrect to say that "you can't link [GPL code] against non-GPL stuff."
Hello all. I've been struggling with licensing for 2 years now, especially with one for http://jos.org , I've written up a possible alternative. It is at http://distributedcopyright.org. It seems to have the best aspects of open-source, yet allowing a return on investment for a developer. I'd love to hear your feedback, please join the discussion list! Thank you! Clark Evans