Re: [Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
Charles, Thanks for your input :) Comments and more questions inline; On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: What do I do with my blinder.lrp (it's getting closer to releaseability)... licensing-wise? Pretty much whatever you want :) Heh... :) The majority of the code is written by myself. But there *are* snippage IMHO, writing code is a lot like writing books. Everyone copies everyone else's ideas, but you need to stay away from actually plagerizing something. Of course, trying to define exactly how much modification makes something entirely yours vs. a modified version of another author's code (or story, or whatever) is a pretty blurry line... Agreed... Does anyone have any good links on the subject? Saddly, no. Please share with the list if you find some good references. Bummer :( I *was* kind of hoping for a reference to the GPL in 'human readable' format... If I find anthing useful, I'll post it. Personally I'd be only happy to see people using this thingie, but I ... Most of the open-source licenses are pretty strong about continuing to credit previous authors (one of the biggest sins in the open-source world is to deny credit to someone whose work you have built on). I Which makes perfect sense. And since I'm all for giving credit where credit's due, that's all fine. doubt you found any major pieces of code that are reproduced in your new blind application (ie your work is basically original, not derrived), so you probably don't have to worry too much about licensing, but it would still maybe be nice if you included references to some of the material you used as references. Yeah, this is what I intend to. Of course, if a big chunk of your code is lifted from somewhere, you will definately need to acknowledge that fact, and consider any licensing implications. No *big* chunks, tiny ones, but still. BTW: I consider the weblet code (cgi-bin scripts) to be GPL'd, although there is no license specified. I guess I haven't worried about it too much because: O.K. - Adding licensing notices and author credits takes space, and I was trying to make everything as small as possible Smallness is not so much of a concern for me right now. One of the rationales for this app, is that it sits on a dedicated box, *well* shielded from public access. So after I ripped out most of the functions from the Bering system, there was plenty space... At this point, smallness is more of a matter of code optimization/reuse and speedy execution (the less code that runs, the faster it goes, hopefully ;) - I'm not particularly worried about recieving ongoing credit for the cgi-bin stuff...it wasn't that much work. O.K. But you won't *mind* it if I give you credit for it? - The shell-script stuff is pretty much open-source anyway...it's kind of hard to release a closed-source shell script :-) lol... Yeah, you're right about that ;) NOTE: There *IS* a GPL notification at the start of sh-httpd, it was a bit more work :) And that is what it takes? So I basically 'just declare' my stuff to be GPL'ed (providing it lives up to any requirements) and that's that? Or rather: Considering that the whole thing consists of a number ~(10 - 12) scripts/C-programs, do I need to put the 'notice' in each one? Or is it sufficient to put it in, say, a README, packaged with the rest? Also there's the matter of the source for the C-exes. As was mentioned in the 'bering=GNU?' thread, it seems kind of overkill to put that in the .lrp... So is it sufficient to post it on a website, or is it better/preferred that I make a 'developer' tarball, with everything in it, and make *that* available for download as well? As for packaging in general, my intention is to makes the blinder.lrp available, as a standalone package. That is, *not* to make complete floppy images. So that anyone who wants to use it, will have to get a Bering/(whatever) image, and strip that to make space and subsequently install the blinder.lrp to it. The rationale being that anyone who's about to build/use such a system, may as well get to know LEAF in the process, plus it makes my life much easier. AND I avoid any licensing issues in the process... Thanks again for the response... Jon Clausen --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 01:18, Jon Clausen wrote: Charles, Thanks for your input :) Comments and more questions inline; On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: What do I do with my blinder.lrp (it's getting closer to releaseability)... licensing-wise? Pretty much whatever you want :) Heh... :) Jon, Please consider using GPL or MIT. They are both listed in our project trove listing. If you don't find either of those licenses to your liking, any OSI approved license is acceptable for hosting on SourceForge. LEAF project trove on SF http://sourceforge.net/projects/leaf * Development Status: 5 - Production/Stable * Environment: Console (Text Based), No Input/Output (Daemon) * Intended Audience: End Users/Desktop, System Administrators * License: GNU General Public License (GPL), MIT License * Operating System: Linux * Programming Language: C, C++, Unix Shell * Topic: Firewalls, Monitoring # Help Choosing an Open Source license http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=778group_id=1 -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
On Wed, 2002-07-17 at 01:18, Jon Clausen wrote: On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 09:42:02AM -0500, Charles Steinkuehler wrote: NOTE: There *IS* a GPL notification at the start of sh-httpd, it was a bit more work :) And that is what it takes? So I basically 'just declare' my stuff to be GPL'ed (providing it lives up to any requirements) and that's that? Or rather: Considering that the whole thing consists of a number ~(10 - 12) scripts/C-programs, do I need to put the 'notice' in each one? Or is it sufficient to put it in, say, a README, packaged with the rest? Jon, I think it's acceptable to place it in a LICENSE file. Embedded releases can't practically include full license text, so I think linking is acceptable. Note: IANAL. Also there's the matter of the source for the C-exes. As was mentioned in the 'bering=GNU?' thread, it seems kind of overkill to put that in the .lrp... So is it sufficient to post it on a website, or is it better/preferred that I make a 'developer' tarball, with everything in it, and make *that* available for download as well? As for packaging in general, my intention is to makes the blinder.lrp available, as a standalone package. That is, *not* to make complete floppy images. So that anyone who wants to use it, will have to get a Bering/(whatever) image, and strip that to make space and subsequently install the blinder.lrp to it. The rationale being that anyone who's about to build/use such a system, may as well get to know LEAF in the process, plus it makes my life much easier. AND I avoid any licensing issues in the process... I'm going to reverse my recommendation in the post below. http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg05257.html CVS is the preferred place for source, and the alternate is a source tarball. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
At 08:42 AM 7/18/02 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: [...] Considering that the whole thing consists of a number ~(10 - 12) scripts/C-programs, do I need to put the 'notice' in each one? Or is it sufficient to put it in, say, a README, packaged with the rest? Jon, I think it's acceptable to place it in a LICENSE file. Embedded releases can't practically include full license text, so I think linking is acceptable. Note: IANAL. I remember this topic being debated on the Debian lists about a year ago. The question there was a tiny bit different -- some people were arguing that having a single licenses file for the distribution as a whole was insufficient to comply with the GPL, and that each individual .deb binary package needed to include an actual copy of the license text (each one that used the GPL, that is; there are other DFSG-compliant licenses, of course). I don't know (or at least don't recall) how this debate played out in principle. I do know that the proposed change to the contents of .deb files actually distributed as part of Debian (there are unofficial .deb packages around too) was not made. The distro does include one copy of each of the various DFSG-compliant licenses in its base package set, though; certainly at least the CD-based LEAF versions could manage this (I haven't looked but I bet they already do). I never see the full text of licenses included in the actual source code files themselves, though an accompanying LICENSE file is fairly common with the source packages. -- ---Never tell me the odds!-- Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo Palo Alto, California, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
Hi all All this talk about the different license schemes lately, has me wondering... What do I do with my blinder.lrp (it's getting closer to releaseability)... licensing-wise? The majority of the code is written by myself. But there *are* snippets of code here and there (mainly the C-parts) where I've basically cut/pasted and slightly modified examples I've found around the web... I'm not exactly sure if any *code* still survives, but in any case I've been looking heavily at some of the viewlogs etc. cgi-scripts that come with the weblet/bering-1rc2... I'll track down and ask the people who published aforementioned C-snippets, but what are my options/obligations in general? Does anyone have any good links on the subject? Personally I'd be only happy to see people using this thingie, but I would prolly be pretty upset if someone were to grab the code and advertise it as theirs... (not that I imagine anyone would *want* to do that since it's all still pretty sloppy/ugly anyway) I know this is slightly off-topic, but this is the only developer list I'm subscribed to, and as such I see this as my best bet at finding out about this... If this is inappropriate, please don't hesitate to let me know, alternatively reply by PM. TIA Jon Clausen P.s: I've now gotten a bit further with both the system itself, *and* the website: http://bund.dk/blinder/ if anyone's curious :) --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in! http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing
All this talk about the different license schemes lately, has me wondering... What do I do with my blinder.lrp (it's getting closer to releaseability)... licensing-wise? Pretty much whatever you want :) The majority of the code is written by myself. But there *are* snippets of code here and there (mainly the C-parts) where I've basically cut/pasted and slightly modified examples I've found around the web... I'm not exactly sure if any *code* still survives, but in any case I've been looking heavily at some of the viewlogs etc. cgi-scripts that come with the weblet/bering-1rc2... I'll track down and ask the people who published aforementioned C-snippets, but what are my options/obligations in general? IMHO, writing code is a lot like writing books. Everyone copies everyone else's ideas, but you need to stay away from actually plagerizing something. Of course, trying to define exactly how much modification makes something entirely yours vs. a modified version of another author's code (or story, or whatever) is a pretty blurry line... Does anyone have any good links on the subject? Saddly, no. Please share with the list if you find some good references. Personally I'd be only happy to see people using this thingie, but I would prolly be pretty upset if someone were to grab the code and advertise it as theirs... (not that I imagine anyone would *want* to do that since it's all still pretty sloppy/ugly anyway) Most of the open-source licenses are pretty strong about continuing to credit previous authors (one of the biggest sins in the open-source world is to deny credit to someone whose work you have built on). I doubt you found any major pieces of code that are reproduced in your new blind application (ie your work is basically original, not derrived), so you probably don't have to worry too much about licensing, but it would still maybe be nice if you included references to some of the material you used as references. Of course, if a big chunk of your code is lifted from somewhere, you will definately need to acknowledge that fact, and consider any licensing implications. BTW: I consider the weblet code (cgi-bin scripts) to be GPL'd, although there is no license specified. I guess I haven't worried about it too much because: - Adding licensing notices and author credits takes space, and I was trying to make everything as small as possible - I'm not particularly worried about recieving ongoing credit for the cgi-bin stuff...it wasn't that much work. - The shell-script stuff is pretty much open-source anyway...it's kind of hard to release a closed-source shell script :-) NOTE: There *IS* a GPL notification at the start of sh-httpd, it was a bit more work :) Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in! http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
[Leaf-devel] [OT] Speaking of Licensing (2.nd try)
Something is definitely not right... I guess I have to talk to my ISP :( Anyway, I tried sending this yesterday, and since it hasn't shown up yet, I'll try once more: - Forwarded message from Jon Clausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:36:09 +0200 From: Jon Clausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Speaking of Licensing Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all All this talk about the different license schemes lately, has me wondering... What do I do with my blinder.lrp (it's getting closer to releaseability)... licensing-wise? The majority of the code is written by myself. But there *are* snippets of code here and there (mainly the C-parts) where I've basically cut/pasted and slightly modified examples I've found around the web... I'm not exactly sure if any *code* still survives, but in any case I've been looking heavily at some of the viewlogs etc. cgi-scripts that come with the weblet/bering-1rc2... I'll track down and ask the people who published aforementioned C-snippets, but what are my options/obligations in general? Does anyone have any good links on the subject? Personally I'd be only happy to see people using this thingie, but I would prolly be pretty upset if someone were to grab the code and advertise it as theirs... (not that I imagine anyone would *want* to do that since it's all still pretty sloppy/ugly anyway) I know this is slightly off-topic, but this is the only developer list I'm subscribed to, and as such I see this as my best bet at finding out about this... If this is inappropriate, please don't hesitate to let me know, alternatively reply by PM. TIA Jon Clausen P.s: I've now gotten a bit further with both the system itself, *and* the website: http://bund.dk/blinder/ if anyone's curious :) - End forwarded message - --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber - The world's fastest growing real-time communications platform! Don't just IM. Build it in! http://www.jabber.com/osdn/xim ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
