Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

I'll second that. I remember Ballmer's "Linux is a cancer..." and gave  
an overview of the origins and rationale to students in a (shame - the  
only Powerpoint) presentation I still use: http://www.slideshare.net/cubexplorer/opensource-5479951 
 - DaveE



thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds. :-)


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Anthony Durity]

I'm not surprised people have an opinion and are informed about these
things. I'm old enough to remember how Microsoft sucked the life out of the
desktop software industry due to their anti-competitive practises. They
were able to do this cuz they could keep their source code secret, it
enabled their monopoly and helped them use their monopoly to their
competitive advantage. The only reason software does not suck any more is
because of the GPL. Period. thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds.
:-) It's all true, I tells ya.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Dave Everitt wrote:

> Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little Camping
> app: 'a guide to software licenses' :-)
>
>
>  On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote:
>>
>>> MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only
>>> one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite.
>>>
>>
>> Heh.  Actually, it is not:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**MIT_license#Various_versions
>> Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous.  However, the Expat
>> license has received much support as "MIT license" in various
>> comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous
>> anymore.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/  | E-mail: p...@luon.net
>> Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net  | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
>> __**_
>>
>
> __**_
> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/**listinfo/camping-list
>
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little  
Camping app: 'a guide to software licenses' :-)



On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote:
MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's  
only

one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite.


Heh.  Actually, it is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions
Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous.  However, the Expat
license has received much support as "MIT license" in various
comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous
anymore.

Cheers,
Paul

--
Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/  | E-mail: p...@luon.net
Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net  | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
___


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Paul van Tilburg]

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote:
> MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only
> one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite.

Heh.  Actually, it is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions
Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous.  However, the Expat
license has received much support as "MIT license" in various
comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous
anymore.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 
Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/  | E-mail: p...@luon.net
Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net  | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Isak Andersson]

Yeah, I'm surprised too. I only gave a one word response of my favourite 
license, but damn! Everyone else flourished with good information!

It's nice when something little like this sparks a discussion 

Anyways, I like zlib because it gives great freedoms for the consumers but 
makes sure that people can't claim they wrote the original software. It 
encourages a thank you for people who use your product but does not enforce it.

Also it's really short so people *actually* might read it!

Cheers!

Isak Andersson

Dave Everitt  skrev:

This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a 
licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics 
(A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source 'split') to 
students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this'll make me 
revisit the slides... - DaveE

> Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the 
> "public domain".
>
> Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate
> a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition
> for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on.
> Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the
> reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects).
>
> SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but
> they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice:
>
> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html
>
> A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because
> it would not be considered by the OSI:
>
> http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html
>
> I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion
> that not everything is so black-and-white.
>
> "There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is
> simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating
> non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.
> And that's the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive
> licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but
> somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything
> Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability)
> except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright
> game'." -- Chad Perrin
>
> Cheers,
> Norbert
>_

> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

_

Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

_

Unlimited TV & Full Length Movies Online. No extra fees. Free Trial.
http://click.lavabit.com/4qbucuu8xmna5ytg9ptgoct3b9pz4ikttr6iky66jaaotguqz9ny/
_

___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a  
licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics  
(A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source 'split') to  
students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this'll make me  
revisit the slides... - DaveE


Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the  
"public domain".


Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate
a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition
for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on.
Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the
reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects).

SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but
they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice:

http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html

A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because
it would not be considered by the OSI:

http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html

I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion
that not everything is so black-and-white.

"There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is
simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating
non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.
And that's the pity of it:  Using a very simple standard permissive
licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but
somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything
Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability)
except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright
game'."  -- Chad Perrin

Cheers,
Norbert
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

ChillDB License

[Trevor Johns]

My personal favorites are the MIT and BSD licneses -- both are similar, and
basically grant people the right to do whatever they want provided that
they preserve attribution in source code (so called "permissive licenses").

MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only
one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite.

There's actually 3 versions of the BSD license: 4-clause, 3-clause, and
2-clause:

   - 2-clause is functionally identical to the MIT license. If you want to
   go with this, just use the MIT license to prevent confusion. :)
   - 3-clause adds the restriction that the original author's name can't be
   used in advertising.
   - Avoid the 4-clause version -- it has an annoying advertising clause
   that I've never heard anything good about.

There's also the Apache license, which is similar to BSD. However, it's a
much stronger document from a legal perspective, and adds a patent grant.
This comes at the expense of readability. (Roughly 3 paragraphs vs 25
paragraphs)

Avoid public domain -- as has been mentioned, some jurisdictions don't
recognize an author's right to place a work into the public domain before
copyright expires. For this reason, it's legally ambiguous, which is bad
for the people using your code. There's also no warranty disclaimer, so
somebody could (theoretically) take you to court if your code has bugs and
something breaks.

I recommend reading this PDF, which goes into a lot of detail on these
three licenses: http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/ch02.pdf

-- Trevor

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, Jenna Fox wrote:

>  A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a
> software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What
> licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain?
>
>
> —
> Jenna
>
>
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Bartosz Dziewoński]

Yeah, that's why you should, when releasing into Public Domain, and
also release under WTFPL ;)

-- Matma Rex
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Norbert Wójtowicz]

Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the "public domain".

Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate
a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition
for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on.
Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the
reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects).

SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but
they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice:

http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html

A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because
it would not be considered by the OSI:

http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html

I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion
that not everything is so black-and-white.

"There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is
simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating
non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge.
And that's the pity of it:  Using a very simple standard permissive
licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but
somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything
Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability)
except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright
game'."  -- Chad Perrin

Cheers,
Norbert
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Isak Andersson]

Zlib!

Cheers!

Isak Andersson

Jenna Fox  skrev:

A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a 
software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What licenses 
are good? BSD? Public Domain? 



—

Jenna


Get the best selection of equity home loans sites here. Click Here to 
check 
them out!

http://click.lavabit.com/rrjir48a1nszui17hy4oa5sie7yeqtbcfzk8zmjq58yxbtmrrguy/ 

___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

thanks Magnus, Anthony - that's all going in my quickref 'solutions  
log'... DE



Public domain is "people can do whatever they want with it".

BSD is "people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain
copyright and they must credit me". (so the copyright part isn't that
important there).

GPL is "people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep
it in GPL and credit me".



BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved.
Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS  
means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted  
open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses  
like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an  
entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent  
binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as  
more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom  
(freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel  
that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer.


If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with
(L)GPL2
(L)GPL3
Apache
MIT
BSD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences

If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have  
it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of  
software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.

___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

LOL if you don't, that's okay! Just in case you did... - DE


Why would I care if they did that?

—
Jenna

On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dave Everitt wrote:

You could read Stallman's CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/ 
copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code  
into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE




___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Magnus Holm]

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jenna Fox  wrote:
> This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is
> best. I'm not a big believer in copyright.

Public domain is "people can do whatever they want with it".

BSD is "people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain
copyright and they must credit me". (so the copyright part isn't that
important there).

GPL is "people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep
it in GPL and credit me".
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Jenna Fox]

Why would I care if they did that?  

—
Jenna


On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dave Everitt wrote:

> You could read Stallman's CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ to 
> prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a profitable 
> product (I think) - DaveE
>  
> > This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is 
> > best. I'm not a big believer in copyright.  
> >  
> > —
> > Jenna
> >  
> >  
> > On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote:
> >  
> > > Hey there,
> > >  
> > > BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved.
> > > Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS 
> > > means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted 
> > > open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like 
> > > the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity 
> > > modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does 
> > > not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. 
> > > Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to 
> > > do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer.
> > >  
> > > If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with
> > > (L)GPL2
> > > (L)GPL3
> > > Apache
> > > MIT
> > > BSD
> > >  
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences
> > >  
> > > If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it 
> > > FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are 
> > > public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.
> > >  
> > > Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this.
> > >  
> > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox  > > (mailto:a...@creativepony.com)> wrote:
> > > > A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a 
> > > > software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What 
> > > > licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain?  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > —
> > > > Jenna
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > > ___
> > > > Camping-list mailing list
> > > > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
> > >  
> > > ___
> > > Camping-list mailing list
> > > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > ___
> > Camping-list mailing list
> > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
> ___
> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>  
>  


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Dave Everitt]

You could read Stallman's CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/  
to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a  
profitable product (I think) - DaveE


This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public  
domain is best. I'm not a big believer in copyright.


—
Jenna

On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote:


Hey there,

BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved.
Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing -  
FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and  
accepted open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se.  
Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open  
if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent  
binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as  
more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom  
(freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel  
that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer.


If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with
(L)GPL2
(L)GPL3
Apache
MIT
BSD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences

If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not  
have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of  
software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.


Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this.

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox  wrote:
A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly  
put a software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS  
yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain?



—
Jenna


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Jenna Fox]

This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. 
I'm not a big believer in copyright.

—
Jenna


On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote:

> Hey there,
>  
> BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved.
> Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS means 
> generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source 
> license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style 
> licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ 
> redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus 
> sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of 
> freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that 
> BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer.
>  
> If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with
> (L)GPL2
> (L)GPL3
> Apache
> MIT
> BSD
>  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences
>  
> If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS 
> then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public 
> domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.
>  
> Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this.
>  
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox  (mailto:a...@creativepony.com)> wrote:
> > A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a 
> > software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What 
> > licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain?  
> >  
> >  
> > —
> > Jenna
> >  
> >  
> > ___
> > Camping-list mailing list
> > Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>  
> ___
> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org)
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>  
>  


___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

Re: ChillDB License

[Anthony Durity]

Hey there,

BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved.
Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS means
generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source
license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style
licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source
_and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD
is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion
of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel
that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer.

If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with
(L)GPL2
(L)GPL3
Apache
MIT
BSD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences

If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it
FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are
public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.

Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this.

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox  wrote:

>  A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a
> software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What
> licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain?
>
>
> —
> Jenna
>
>
> ___
> Camping-list mailing list
> Camping-list@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
>
___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list

ChillDB License

[Jenna Fox]

A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a 
software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What licenses 
are good? BSD? Public Domain?  


—
Jenna

___
Camping-list mailing list
Camping-list@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list