Regarding multiple licensing: The problem with this is that you have to be more careful with user contributions.
Suppose that you want to use both the GPL and MPL (which is a fine choice btw). Suppose that I make a signifigant improvement and you want to accept those improvements back into your project. What license am I using to license my work back to you? I have the right, under typical multiple licencing schemes, to decide which license I am accepting. You need to careful that either I am licensing my work back you under the same set of multiple license or that I am assigning copyright back to your project. If I "only" give you my improvements under the GPL, you cannot then redistribute my improvements, together with your original code, under one of the other licences you originally choose. Generally you will make you life much much easier if you decide to use a single license AND get copyright assignments from contributors. I have no problem assigning copyright to a project that I know will provide my copyright back to me under one of the Google 7. This will give you the option of using the MySQL proprietary/free dual licensing revenue model in the far future. Unless you are careful to aquire the copyright from contributors from early on, this option will likely be unavailable to you in the far future. HTH, -FT On Dec 18, 2007 3:02 PM, Hemant Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was counting on you and you guys you came through. Your many inputs have > managed to push me to that higher level of confusion from which only > enlightenment can emerge. > > All licenses I am considering are in the "Google 7" suite as Fred Trotter > describes in his article. Bhaskar, Adrian and Fred make a strong case for > GPL but Gunther's arguments have more or less convinced me to go with MPL. > I > feel that MPL or LGPL will allow more people to consider working with the > code than would GPL. I do not mind if they take much more and give only a > miniscule back. That miniscule could be precious. > > However, issues I did not consider earlier have now clambered on to my > frame > of cognition and I need to resolve those. I list the issues here: > > - *Multiple licensing ab initio* which combinations are compatible? > MPL + GPL? MPL + LGPL? > - *Using single license initially, later considering issuing it under > other licenses* which licenses give us such flexibility? LGPL? GPL? > MPL? > - I clearly hear "roll-your-own" is not a good idea. What I don't > clearly hear is why so? There is the suspicion for the strange with > which > the FOSS developers will approach such projects and several other > reasons > that Fred's article covers. Besides this, do the FOSS organizations > offer > additional protection/support if we use a standard license? I need to > convince the legal team here about this stance. > > Learning from the stalwarts is fun. Considering the ease with which you > can > create your own decision support process with Proteus, I might author a > process that guides novices like me through the steps to help select the > right license for them. > Thanks guys, > > Hemant > > -- > Hemant Shah, M.D., M.Surg. > Sr. Research Informatician > Henry Ford Health System > Detroit, MI 48202 > > http://www.proteme.org <%20http://www.proteme.org%20> > > On Dec 18, 2007 2:19 PM, ksbhaskar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com <openhealth%40yahoogroups.com>, "K.S > . > > Bhaskar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [KSB] <...snip...> > > > > > > > 2. It is the license that IMHO best protects the software developer > > from > > > seeing his work incorporated into a non-FOSS proprietary piece of > work. > > > > [KSB] This > > ( > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/dec/17/busybox-xterasys-settlement/ > > ) > > is just one of several recent out-of-court settlements that those who > > have released software under GPL have been able to reach. [To me, an > > out-of-court settlement much the better alternative to going to trial.] > > > > If you want to protect yourself against someone downstream taking your > > work and making it a part of their non-FOSS work, there is nothing > > like the GPL. > > > > Regards > > -- Bhaskar > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
