On 02/10/2011 04:25 AM, Michael Schubert wrote:
I think there is one issue most people are overlooking: licensing is *not*
the same as ownership. Ownership allows you to release your code under any
license you want and other users are able to use it under the terms of the
license. Do not make the error of wanting to transfer ownership instead of
just a license release.
Also, I fully agree with Peter Lewis' sentiments 2 posts ago: it is dull,
but important to get right.
Adding to that, a license on an individual PKGBUILD may not be enforcable
(since it is unlikely to reach the complexity threshold), however, given the
vast amount of scripts in the AUR database as a whole, they will be. Thus I
would propose an "uploads are licensed under [...]" next to the submit
button, which should sufficiently cover the issue.
My general thoughts:
- PKGBUILDs should be freely distributable
- Attribution of the previous authors should be mandatory
- Commercial exploitation (i.e., using/modifying without giving anything
back) should not be possible
These points are all covered by the GPL. Plus it would be simple since most
of Arch is already under that license. BSD won't cover the third. Public
domain won't cover points 2 and 3. Thus, I think GPL would be the (only)
right choice.
2011/2/10 Xyne<x...@archlinux.ca>
On 2011-02-07 09:13 -0200 (06:1)
Bernardo Barros wrote:
2011/2/6 Ray Rashif<sc...@archlinux.org>:
# Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
But Arch is a legal entity? Can we put "Arch" as the copyright holder?
That would make it possible for Arch to prevent packagers from distributing
their own packages. It would almost certainly never happen, but naive
optimism
is a bad thing. I have seen OSS projects sell out to corporations before.
That's also why I remove the "or any later version" clause from anything
that I
release under the GPL. No one can guarantee that there will never be a
major
loophole in a future version, or that all future versions will be in the
same
spirit.
What I do not like about the GPL is that it forces people to republish
derivative works under the GPL license, rather than under another
license. As long as the maintainer (aka copyright holder) are allowed to
specify their own license then I'd be fine with it, though.
Smartboy
