(moving this here to chat because, as Eric said, this was off-topic in the programming forum (sorry!))
The GPL came out of a bad situation, where a guy who was used to a culture of freely sharing programs suddenly found himself unable to use or modify the software he himself had created as an employee of the company he worked for. The idea that a company owns the work created for it by its employees is commonly understood today (at least here in the USA), but it was a new idea back then. The GPL basically ensures that anybody who gains access to the source code has the right to do whatever they like with it, provided they make the same rights available to anybody else. As I understand it, Richard Stallman (the guy who wrote the GPL and founded the Free Software Foundation) considers this a moral issue and believes that it is ethically wrong to do anything that prevents users from understanding or modifying the software that runs on their computers. The term "open source" represents a more moderate idea. An open source license simply grants people the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the code, and allows (but may or may not require) passing these rights on to others. My personal stance has always been that if I give you something, it's yours to do with as you like. I don't make everything I do open source, but when I do, as far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to incorporate that code into a closed, commercial program or a project under the GPL, they ought to be free to do that, so I tend to choose a very liberal license, like one of these: - http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT - http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC - http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib (Zlib is currently my default choice, unless I'm contributing code to a project that uses something else.) Anyway, my personal preference for JAL would be to see the code under a license like one of these, or at the very least a license like the MPL or LGPL that restricts the viral "you have to share your changes if you distribute" part to individual changed files or libraries. I think these licenses makes sense for both the community and for jsoftware, because they protect the copyright holders without discouraging other companies or individuals from contributing, and the simple fact that other people would share the cost of maintaining the software is an incentive for users to contribute their changes, even if doing so isn't required. On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:26 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Initially you had asked "... am I required to put any code that uses > JDB under the GPL?" > > Given that phrasing, I am surprised by your current question: "Would > you guys be at all willing to add an explicit open source license to > the JAL?" > > Do you want to be required to put any code that uses JDB under the GPL? > > Thanks, > > -- > Raul > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Michal Wallace > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hrm. Thanks for clarifying the license for JAL, Eric... But this opens > up a > > whole other can of worms. :) > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but this license doesn't appear to give anybody the > right > > to redistribute JDB or produce derivative works. > > > > This line seems especially outdated, given that engine source is > available, > > and it doesn't seem applicable to JAL at all: > > > > You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. > > > > The only rights of duplication mentioned are specifically those granted > to > > the US government, and the phrase "all rights reserved." > > > > As it stands, I would be pretty wary of including JAL code in an open > > source project, because as cool as you guys are, > > the potential exists for some future owner of jsoftware to cause a > problem > > for anyone who modifies and redistributes > > the code, or anyone using that code. > > > > (Would you turn down a billion dollars from Oracle if they wanted to buy > > you out?) > > > > Would you guys be at all willing to add an explicit open source license > to > > the JAL? > > > > http://opensource.org/definition > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Eric Iverson <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> J libraries and addons, unless explicitly stated, are all under > >> Jsoftware copyright and are covered by the documentation in the J Help > >> -> User Manual -> General Information -> Copyright / Warranty / > >> License. > >> > >> Jsoftware products are not under GPL and there are no GPL > considerations. > >> > >> Jsoftware separately released a copy of the J Engine source under GPL, > >> but this in no way affects Jsoftware's own use and distribution of its > >> J Engine source or users who have a commercial license to that source. > >> > >> GPL is only an issue if you use an engine built with the GPL source. > >> In that case you have to make your own assessment of where GPL starts > >> and where it ends. The Jsoftware position is that it begins and ends > >> with the GPL engine source and that scripts and libraries are in no > >> way affected. > >> > >> Summary: > >> 1. Jsofware license is simple and clearly stated in the docs > >> 2. if you don't use the GPL engine source there are no GPL issues > >> 3. if you use the GPL source, then whether there are GPL issues only > >> you and your lawyers can decide (we think it is silly to think that > >> scripts are affected by a GPL engine as then GPL would be like ice-9). > >> > >> If you have further questions I suggest you contact me directly > >> outside of the forum. You might be interested in a commercial J Engine > >> source license to avoid any GPL. You might also be interested in the > >> imminent release of Jd, and new, much improved JDB, that will be a > >> Jsoftware commercial product. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Michal Wallace > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Are these two libraries considered part of J? > >> > If so, do they share J's license? > >> > If so, am I required to put any code that uses JDB under the GPL? > >> > > >> > What about the rest of JAL? > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
