Re: Which License should I pick?
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote: No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The Maybe I am missing something, but why do you think that you can change the XFree86 license without the consent of contributors? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
Bjorn Reese wrote: On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 22:34, Hans Ekbrand wrote: No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The Maybe I am missing something, but why do you think that you can change the XFree86 license without the consent of contributors? The X license permits sublicensing. So it permits incorporation of the X software into a larger work which is then distributed under another license, e.g. the GPL. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Hans Ekbrand wrote: Like you say, it's good to keep as many options open as possible, and it's hard to go back on a licensing decision if it's too broad. No it is the other way around: if the program is released under a less restricted license, e.g. xfree86-ish, then you could always, without the consent of contributors, change to (L)GPL for newer versions. The wine project (http://www.winehq.org) is a real world example of such a change. I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the license? If I asked for such an agreement would I be scaring away potential contributors? I'm starting to wish I didn't have to worry about all this junk. Thanks, Scott -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the license? It's fairly common, though not universal. All GNU projects require a written copyright assignment, as do a number of others. If I asked for such an agreement would I be scaring away potential contributors? You might scare away a few. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
begin Scott Long quotation: I hadn't considered the issue of ownership of copyright for contributed code. Is it common for open source projects to stipulate that contributors either transfer copyright or agree to allow the owner to change the license? If I asked for such an agreement would I be scaring away potential contributors? Well, one thing you can do is require that all submissions come under some extremely permissive license, like the MIT X license or a do whatever you want grant of permission. Then you don't need to worry about relicensing your combined or derived work, since it's not likely to conflict. This method is likely to be MUCH less hairy than getting release of copyright to you. How do you currently accept submissions? Do you take patches? Third-party code modules or files? Think of how you can make clear the permissions granted to you by the contributors. -- Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends. -- Lewis Mumford end -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Nick Moffitt wrote: How do you currently accept submissions? Do you take patches? Third-party code modules or files? Think of how you can make clear the permissions granted to you by the contributors. Well, the project hasn't gone public yet, which is why I'm asking these licensing questions. I don't anticipate changes to the basic code base, but I do expect that people may want to write various modules. I wouldn't necessarily be unhappy if those modules remained third-party (i.e., they don't become part of the project). Then, I could take care of the core code myself and let a packager put it all together into a bundle, right? How would the individual licenses of the third party modules affect me, if they happened to be packaged together with my code? Thanks for your response, Scott -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Which License should I pick?
begin Scott Long quotation: Well, the project hasn't gone public yet, which is why I'm asking these licensing questions. I don't anticipate changes to the basic code base, but I do expect that people may want to write various modules. What of bug fixes? I wouldn't necessarily be unhappy if those modules remained third-party (i.e., they don't become part of the project). Then, I could take care of the core code myself and let a packager put it all together into a bundle, right? How would the individual licenses of the third party modules affect me, if they happened to be packaged together with my code? If your contributors use a DFSG or OSD-compliant license, then the effects ought to be nil. Both the OSD and DFSG forbid licenses that affect other applications in a distribution. The GPL explicitly disavows all power in the event of mere aggregation as opposed to combination into a derived work. The exact boundary for this distinction is where a lot of disagreements come from. Does use of shared libraries or CORBA modules constitute combination into a derived work? Why is this different from statically-linked object libraries? This is the conundrum that influenced the creation of the LGPL (Lesser GPL. Originally called the Library GPL, but the name was changed when it was discovered that people mistakenly thought that they weren't supposed to use the regular GPL for libraries.) The best way to handle this for YOUR code is to explicitly clarify the scope of the license terms you use. Remember that a license is nothing more than you saying I'll let you do this, this, and this with my work. It isn't some magical spell that you enchant your program with. So you could distribute your program to me and say I permit you to modify this in order to translate it to Esperanto and then turn to Rick Moen and say I permit you to modify this into a screenplay. At that point, neither of us could produce an Esperanto screenplay of your work without further permission. So you could release your work under the GPL, and say this type of third-party module is considered mere aggregation by me, and thus does not fall under the obligations of the main work's license I hope that wasn't too long-winded. -- Forget the damned motor car and build cities for lovers and friends. -- Lewis Mumford end -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
