Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:04:50 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code. If it's under the GPL, they're not allowed to prevent you from distributing it, if you have a copy. Only if the copy is licenced to you by the copyright owner under the GPL in the first place. You can't just take source code you have no rights to, or some other set of rights, stick the GPL on it without the copyright owner's permission, and then legally distribute it. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On 11/30/05, Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Boddie wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. Is that an indirect reference to the following article? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 Among other places where Rosen has said it, like his book. In fairness, when on the one hand a lawyer (or 2, in this case) who specializes in IP law tell you that something is uncertain, and on the other hand, a non-lawyer (but certainly a smart guy) dismisses the whole thing as stupid, I kinda tend toward listening to the lawyer. Especially as, if you carefully read what is and isn't said, DJB doesn't actually contradict Rosen or Lessig - he says that as far as he knows nobody has ever bothered the court with it, which is one way of telling he's not a lawyer - a lawyer would say (as Lessig does in his blog post) that there have been no test cases but his analysis of the law is that there are inconsistencies and that were such a case to occur, he is not sure who who would prevail. I'm not a legal expert or a lawyer. But I certainly find Rosens detailed and well-explained analysis of the situation to be much more convincing than Dans hand-waving. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Paul Rubin wrote: That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. Is that an indirect reference to the following article? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Paul Boddie wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. Is that an indirect reference to the following article? http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 Among other places where Rosen has said it, like his book. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!). http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. As far as I can tell, and according to experts like L. Lessig, he is wrong. When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer. So at this point I wouldn't believe anything he says. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Whether your employer has claim to stuff you do on your own time depends intricately on the law in your state. California is much different from New York, for example. The platitudes you hear in this thread about it are pretty useless. Employer means something specific: are you paid on W2's? If not, maybe you have a client or customer rather than an employer and the entire picture is different. When something is work for hire is also intricate. Just because you're being paid by someone else to write something doesn't always make it a work for hire, even if you're an employee. There are no simple universal answers. To get these questions answered you really have to consult a legal adviser IN YOUR STATE. And you should explain at the very beginning to your client/customer/employer what you're doing and what rights you want to hold on to, and negotiate a written agreement. Don't take the attitude of in what ways can I make sure that surprises I spring on the client get resolved in my favor if there's a dispute. Instead, do everything you can to avoid disputes and surprises. That means get the client need to agree in advance, in writing, to what happens with what. Every agreement I've signed in the past few years has included a release rights (from me to the employer) and a list of exceptions as part of the boilerplate. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Koenig wrote: I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written agreement to the contrary. The US Copyright Office does not agree with you. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf Well, it comes pretty close to agreeing with me--the only issue is whether the definition of employee extends beyond the notion of W-2 employee and that issue is not really relevant to the original posting. Here's the relevant quote: If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire. Important: The term employee here is not really the same as the common understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee under the general common law of agency. This is explained in further detail below. Please read about this at Employer-Employee Relationship Under Agency Law. If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire. The reason I say that the distinction between W-2 employment and agency employment isn't really relevant is that in the kind of situation we're talking about, there is generally a written agreement specifying scope and nature of work. So I'll amend my statement slightly: If someone pays you to produce a specific piece of work, or you're an employee, any work you do for hire belongs to your employer. Otherwise, it's yours unless there's a written agreement to the contrary. I think that's a fair paraphrase of the paragraph I cited. If you disagree, please say why. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made works of music recorded to fullfill a contract work for hire by default. If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made works of music recorded to fullfill a contract work for hire by default. If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter? Music recordings of that type couldn't be works for hire before. It got quietly changed in a sneaky maneuver by a congressional staffer who then became an RIAA lobbyist. I've heard the change got undone sometime after it was noticed and there was a protest but I'm not sure of specifics. See: http://www.jdray.com/Daviews/courtney.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig wrote: Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Koenig wrote: I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written agreement to the contrary. The US Copyright Office does not agree with you. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf Well, it comes pretty close to agreeing with me--the only issue is whether the definition of employee extends beyond the notion of W-2 employee and that issue is not really relevant to the original posting. Yes it is given that the OP is technically a contractor. But it does flatly contradict what you wrote since it specifically states that there are classes of employee for the work made for hire doctrine that go beyond the W-2 employee definition. There was no such law that made the distinction that you did. Here's the relevant quote: If a work is created by an employee, part 1 of the statutory definition applies, and generally the work would be considered a work made for hire. Important: The term employee here is not really the same as the common understanding of the term; for copyright purposes, it means an employee under the general common law of agency. This is explained in further detail below. Please read about this at Employer-Employee Relationship Under Agency Law. If a work is created by an independent contractor (that is, someone who is not an employee under the general common law of agency), then the work is a specially ordered or commissioned work, and part 2 of the statutory definition applies. Such a work can be a work made for hire only if both of the following conditions are met: (1) it comes within one of the nine categories of works listed in part 2 of the definition and (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire. That's not the relevant quote. The relevant quote comes from the part that explain[s] in further detail below about the factors laid down in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. The reason I say that the distinction between W-2 employment and agency employment isn't really relevant is that in the kind of situation we're talking about, there is generally a written agreement specifying scope and nature of work. Stop guessing. So I'll amend my statement slightly: If someone pays you to produce a specific piece of work, or you're an employee, any work you do for hire belongs to your employer. Otherwise, it's yours unless there's a written agreement to the contrary. You can't use the phrase you're trying to define in the definition. I think that's a fair paraphrase of the paragraph I cited. If you disagree, please say why. I disagree because it's a complicated bit of law that can't be boiled down to two sentences. There are lots of tests a judge might apply and none of them are of the form, if the conditions are such-and-such then the work is made for hire, otherwise not. This is not a guessing game for laymen. This is an area for lawyers. If I have one bit of advice for anyone reading this thread, it is this: Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Paul Rubin wrote: Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!). http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm That is the guy who claims it is impossible to release anything into the public domain, other than by dying and then waiting 70 years. As far as I can tell, and according to experts like L. Lessig, he is wrong. Is that why the CC Public Domain Dedication has the subtitle Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification? Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer. He's a lawyer. Getting a legal opinion from him costs money. So at this point I wouldn't believe anything he says. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html I amend my previous advice: Don't listen schmucks on USENET or the Web when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed? -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Aahz wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed? Please do. USENET schmuck is a sufficient attribution if you like, though Robert Kern will work, too. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aahz wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. Mind if I .sig this? How would you like to be attributed? Please do. USENET schmuck is a sufficient attribution if you like, though Robert Kern will work, too. Great! -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Don't listen to schmucks on USENET when making legal decisions. Hire yourself a competent schmuck. --USENET schmuck (aka Robert Kern) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is that why the CC Public Domain Dedication has the subtitle Copyright-Only Dedication (based on United States law) or Public Domain Certification? Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml Hmm, interesting, thanks. When I wrote Mr. Rosen asking about it, he didn't answer. He's a lawyer. Getting a legal opinion from him costs money. A legal opinion means something specific. I didn't ask him for one. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml Hmm, interesting, thanks. Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now): http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct KeyError Sorry, a site error occurred. Traceback (innermost last): * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 175, in publish_module_standard * Module Products.PlacelessTranslationService.PatchStringIO, line 51, in new_publish * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 132, in publish * Module Zope.App.startup, line 204, in zpublisher_exception_hook ... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made works of music recorded to fullfill a contract work for hire by default. If there's a contract -- i.e., a written agreement, then why does it matter? The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Paul Rubin wrote: Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lessig isn't sure. E.g. http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001066.shtml Hmm, interesting, thanks. Bah, the CC link from there leads to a Zope crash (at least right now): http://creativecommons.org/license/publicdomain-direct This is the current URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is the current URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ Thanks, yeah, I remember seeing that, which is what made me say that CC recognized PD dedications (at least in the US--it's unreasonable to expect to account for every weird law some country on earth might come up with). So now I'm perplexed about Lessig's blog post. I'll see if I can ask him about it sometime. I just emailed him the cr.yp.to url that I linked earlier. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something like this in the code: Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano. Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself. I've done that too, but some other post mentions that the Python license is written specifically for Python and can't be used as a subroutine. The original GNU Emacs license (forerunner of the GPL) was the same way: it said stuff like you may distribute copies of Emacs if... instead of you may distribute copies of this program if The GPL was the result of abstracting the Emacs license so it could be applied to other programs, but doing the abstraction took considerable thought. It wasn't just a matter of patching up stuff like the above. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I suggest that your *only* defence will be to get your employer to sign a legal agreement acknowledging that you own the code. If you like, offer them a perpetual royalty-free non-exclusive licence to use the code, and explain how using your own code will make you more productive in their time. They may want to use it in a closed source product (GPL-incompatible) which means in the case of GPL code, they want an exception to the GPL. In the case of GPL code written by me, I'm generally unwilling to grant such exceptions, since part of my purpose of using the GPL is to attract other contributors. The company then has to decide, either: a) accept the GPL; b) don't use the code, and do something else instead, which may end up costing more. If they refuse, then you must absolutely keep a cast-iron barrier between what you develop in your own time and what you develop in theirs. In some jurisdictions even such a cast-iron barrier might not be enough. Unless you explicitly sign them away (and even that is legally dubious) you still retain the moral rights to the code, The US doesn't recognize moral rights. Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code. If it's under the GPL, they're not allowed to prevent you from distributing it, if you have a copy. It need not be a complicated agreement: Certainly, the best policy is to discuss things beforehand and write out an agreement, instead of relying on faulty memory, or springing surprises. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made works of music recorded to fullfill a contract work for hire by default The default applies if the contract doesn't say who owns the work. This was a move by the recording companies so they could get ownership of works simply by not saying who owned it. The trick was even worse than that. The way I've seen it explained, work for hire is supposed to apply only to certain kinds of works done under an employer's specific direction. For example, a company might employ someone to write data sheets for transistors. They are told what to write about, when to write, what template the data sheets should follow, etc. That can be a work for hire. The copyright belongs entirely to the company and the author retains zero interest. But something like an all-original novel cannot be a work for hire even if the publisher employed someone to write it and paid him a salary for doing so. The author can sign over certain of the rights, but retains certain other rights regardless of what any contract he's signed might say. In particular the author can reclaim the copyright after 35 years. This was an escape hatch made as copyrights got longer and longer (they originally maxed out after 28 years). An original music album, like a novel, couldn't be a work for hire until they snuck in that change, as described in the Courtney Love article. That meant record companies could keep the records forever. But I heard that the change has since been reversed. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote: I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something like this in the code: Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano. Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself. See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license. Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license (even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides Python itself. http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq Note that the Python license is not even appropriate for third party code that's intended to be contributed to the Python standard library or core! If you want a like Python license, try the MIT or new-BSD license instead: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote: I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something like this in the code: Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano. Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself. See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license. I use that as a no-brainer licence: it is weaker than but compatible with the GPL, and requires less documentation. Not only is this inappropriate, it doesn't even license users to use your software, it licenses them to use Python! The official advice of the PSF is that the unmodified Python license should *not* (and, really, can not) be used to license any other software. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest. There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas. One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates: The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of time, effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it. It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you, as the copyright holder, to bring legal action against infringers (or at least send a cease-and-desist letter). If you're not going to bother, any and all clauses in the license, no matter how artfully crafted, won't do you any (legal) good. People using your program are left acting on the honor system. Which may be just fine - but you don't need a fancy, legalistic license to accomplish that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Rocco Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One point that frequently gets ignored in licensing debates: The value of a license is directly proportional to the amount of time, effort, and money you are willing to spend enforcing it. That's a very important factor, yes. It doesn't matter how fancy the legal wording is - it is up to you, as the copyright holder, to bring legal action This is true as far as it goes. What is sought, though, is not fancy legal wording, but clarity of intent. The wording is *extremely* important, since it must express, as clearly and unambiguously as possible, the intent of the license granter. Legal action and judicial interpretation will play their part, but the clearer you can make the license text, the less guesswork is needed on both sides to determine what is and is not permitted in the license terms. The GNU GPL, and the Expat license (née X11, MIT, 2-clause BSD, etc.), are popular in part because the intent of their terms is expressed very clearly. -- \ He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder. -- | `\ Maurits Cornelis Escher | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:40:07 -0600, Rocco Moretti wrote: Gaak! No! The Python license you point to contains horrible amounts of cruft due to the ownership ping-pong game. (And just using the hyperlink like you did leaves it vauge as to who is doing the liscensing - Steven D'Aprano? the PSF? BeOpen? CNRI? Stichting Mathematisch Centrum?) As I understand it, the PSF's official position is that the Python license (even just the top most one) is not appropriate for any program besides Python itself. http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSoftwareFoundationLicenseFaq Well, I've just learnt something. Thank you. I'll be having a long talk with the experience Python developer who advised me to do that... -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
First thing first, you need to find out if you are an employee, not in the normal sense, but legal sense. You're right. I know there has been a lot of case law to come down the pike over the years, due to all sorts of issues. One of my friends is a cab driver. His contract says that he is an independent contractor. Yet his state (Oregon) has three criteria that have to be met. One of these is he has to set his own hours. He doesn't; the cab company tells him when he works. This fails the independent contractor test, so the cab company is legally exposed if any of the cabbies wants to press any employment-law issues. So there are too many variables and unknowns, and it varies by jurisdiction. I started this thread under the mistaken hope that there was some sort of license that would force the code to stay open source. Although that isn't realistic, it doesn't change the fact that I should choose a license that best fits my needs. I will consult a lawyer about these issues. Also, if my client/employer won't let me keep my code, I'll just have to keep my code away from them. Maybe I can find a commercial tool and tell them that they will have to buy that. Ron Britton nk67v8o02 at sneakemail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Yup, these independent contractor test doctrines bite both way and in your case, it is not in your advantage, usually. I would suggest that whatever tools you want to make to enhance the work(even it is inspired by your current task), don't use it on this employer/client, at least not on their premise(including property say a notebook provided by them) and must not let anyone know that you use it to help you do the work about them. mojosam wrote: First thing first, you need to find out if you are an employee, not in the normal sense, but legal sense. You're right. I know there has been a lot of case law to come down the pike over the years, due to all sorts of issues. One of my friends is a cab driver. His contract says that he is an independent contractor. Yet his state (Oregon) has three criteria that have to be met. One of these is he has to set his own hours. He doesn't; the cab company tells him when he works. This fails the independent contractor test, so the cab company is legally exposed if any of the cabbies wants to press any employment-law issues. So there are too many variables and unknowns, and it varies by jurisdiction. I started this thread under the mistaken hope that there was some sort of license that would force the code to stay open source. Although that isn't realistic, it doesn't change the fact that I should choose a license that best fits my needs. I will consult a lawyer about these issues. Also, if my client/employer won't let me keep my code, I'll just have to keep my code away from them. Maybe I can find a commercial tool and tell them that they will have to buy that. Ron Britton nk67v8o02 at sneakemail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? It probably means that the only reliable defense is to get a written release from your employer. If you want to be more confident about the situation, consult a lawyer. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which license should I use?
Björn Lindström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer will be able to sell it, just like anyone else. If they have the rights to the code, you don't get to decide on the terms under which it will be distributed (if at all) -- they do. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40 hours/week with the one client). I can take on other clients, as long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include a clause about rereleasing open source changes. Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except* for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's not part of any deliverable, it's yours. Of course, they might object to your using their facilities, or working on their time, on stuff that isn't part of a deliverable. But that's a separate problem entirely. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig wrote: Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of litigation. Although you are technically a consultant, you are probably considered an employee with regards to the work made for hire doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not one! TINLA!). I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written agreement to the contrary. The US Copyright Office does not agree with you. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf But you can read the text of the DMCA itself. http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of litigation. Although you are technically a consultant, you are probably considered an employee with regards to the work made for hire doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not one! TINLA!). I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written agreement to the contrary. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig wrote: Yup. If you're not an employee (that is, if you get a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form from your client), then any work you do belongs to you *except* for what you agree in writing belongs to them. So if you write code that's not part of any deliverable, it's yours. Please stop saying things that are demonstrably untrue and could get people into legal trouble if they believed you. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Andrew Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm pretty sure that there was a change to the copyright laws a few years ago (perhaps as part of the DMCA), that made it clear that you own everything you produce, unless you're a W-2 employee or there is a written agreement to the contrary. Definitely not. The most recent change to the copyright laws made works of music recorded to fullfill a contract work for hire by default. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest. There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas. I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a few programs. These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports, etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still pretty shaky on Python. How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them, it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't think I'd be too upset. I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However, please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on the other thread. Openness is your best protection here, as licensing the software can only impose conditions on those who accept it under the license. It cannot affect your employer's rights to work you performed while an employee. Those rights are determined by applicable law. The only way to ensure that you can take your own unencumbered copy of code you wrote as an employee is to explain the position fully to your employer and get their agreement, in writing and in advance, that they are prepared to have you do so. Simply assuming that because you have developed the code in your own time you have sole rights to it, or even a right to redistribute, is likely to lead to trouble and I would recommend against that course of action. Apart from that, as others have suggested it looks like a BSD-style license would suit you best. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam wrote: I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. Then probably the best licence to use is just to follow the lead of Python. For that sort of small program of limited value, I put something like this in the code: Copyright (c) 2005 Steven D'Aprano. Released under the same license as used by Python 2.3.2 itself. See http://www.python.org/psf/license.html for details, and http://www.python.org/2.3.2/license.html for the full text of the license. I use that as a no-brainer licence: it is weaker than but compatible with the GPL, and requires less documentation. I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? Not at all. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I suggest that your *only* defence will be to get your employer to sign a legal agreement acknowledging that you own the code. If you like, offer them a perpetual royalty-free non-exclusive licence to use the code, and explain how using your own code will make you more productive in their time. If they refuse, then you must absolutely keep a cast-iron barrier between what you develop in your own time and what you develop in theirs. To be safe, I wouldn't even *use* that code in their time: if your productivity suffers, that's their choice. As an alternative, consider that who owns the copyright doesn't matter. If your employer insists on keeping the copyright, get permission from them to distribute the code under an open source licence. Then you can take it with you when you leave, and still use it. Unless you explicitly sign them away (and even that is legally dubious) you still retain the moral rights to the code, even if copyright is owned by your employer: you can still say I wrote this. Please note that merely putting the code under a GPL or other OSS licence is NOT sufficient -- they must agree to let you DISTRIBUTE the code. Merely being under the GPL does not make it compulsory to distribute the code, and if you distribute software copyrighted by your employer without their permission, the fact that is GPLed is not going to save you. Getting permission to put it up on the corporate website might be sufficient, but if it were me, I'd insist on an agreement allowing me to take the code with me when I leave. (This is only necessary if your employer owns the copyright.) It need not be a complicated agreement: I recently signed a copyright transfer agreement for some employees who left the company to start their own company. The agreement was less than two pages long. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Steve Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simply assuming that because you have developed the code in your own time you have sole rights to it, or even a right to redistribute, is likely to lead to trouble and I would recommend against that course of action. The employment agreement may state specifically that the company owns such properties. There have been companies that explicitly claim all software/inventions/etc that you produce while in their employee, even if they had nothing to do with said IP. Some jurisdictions make this illegal - but that doesn't stop the company from trying to convince you they can do that. But this cuts both ways - if you get them to agree in writing as part of the employment agreement that the code isn't there, which Steve suggested, then laws about work for hire are pretty much irrelevant. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On 25 Nov 2005 11:30:46 -0800, mojosam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons? I like this list: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html It's from a GPL perspective of course, but pretty balanced I think. Personally, I use the GPL or the Modified BSD license, depending on the phase of the moon. And I do take software with me to work, but never in the reverse direction. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn grahn@Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:13:10 +, Tom Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... freedom - 'free software', 'free as in speech', etc. What you have to realise is that they're not talking about the freedom of the programmers, but about the freedom of the software. The logic, i think, is that the freedom of the code is the key to the freedom of the end-users: applying the GPL to your code means that other programmers will be forced to apply to to their code, which means that users of that code will get the benefits of open source. ... which implies that one believes that every end-user has the potential to become a hacker. That, I think, is at the core of the GPL, and RMS's rantings are easier to understand if you keep that in mind. But yes, let's not dive too deeply into all that here. Oops! ;-) /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn grahn@Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu \X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Thanks to everyone so far. You've helped a lot. (BTW, I read this through Google Groups. Somehow they've gotten about 24 hours behind, so I'm seeing your replies a day late.) The biggest misconception I had was that the license could force the code to stay open source. You're right. What I do on company time belongs to the company. I guess I assumed there was a license that forced them to release it. At one place I worked, they had to delay the release of the product by a few weeks, because they discovered that they had included an open source (don't know which license) module. They had to pull it out and recode it themselves (I know the other thread covered the subtleties of whether even that was kosher, but let's ignore that here). I think the problem there was they believed that if they included the module, they would have had to release the source code to the entire project. I was kind of hoping for something like that. I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40 hours/week with the one client). I can take on other clients, as long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include a clause about rereleasing open source changes. Anyway, staying away from the lawyer issues, if anyone has additional thoughts to add to this, please keep the conversation going. People are raising some good points. Ron Britton nk67v8o02 at sneakemail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: I would have to talk to a lawyer to be sure, but right now, I think I can argue that anything I do on my own time belongs to me. I'm technically a consultant right now (even though I'm spending 40 hours/week with the one client). I can take on other clients, as long as they don't directly compete. This means they're hiring my expertise. If I bring my own tools, that's part of my expertise. I do recall there was a clause in the contract that anything I did on their time belonged to them. For my next client, I should definitely include a clause about rereleasing open source changes. You're in something of a gray area, but one that has seen a lot of litigation. Although you are technically a consultant, you are probably considered an employee with regards to the work made for hire doctrine. You should probably have a chat with a lawyer soon (I am not one! TINLA!). As Steve Holden said, being open with your client and putting an agreement in your contract is probably the best way to ensure that your work will belong to you or, failing that, continue to be available to you under an open source license. -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The logic, i think, is that the freedom of the code is the key to the freedom of the end-users: applying the GPL to your code means that other programmers will be forced to apply to to their code, which means that users of that code will get the benefits of open source. ... which implies that one believes that every end-user has the potential to become a hacker. To become, or *independently engage another person as* a hacker without necessary further contact with the copyright holder. The same freedom you get with, e.g., any complicated machine. You can open it up yourself, or you can persuade a third party to do so, without the necessity to get the maker involved. It's not necessary for every single user of such machines to become hackers of those machines; they still all get the benefit of the freedom for anyone they choose to hack on it. -- \ I have a map of the United States; it's actual size. It says | `\ '1 mile equals 1 mile'... Last summer, I folded it. -- Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
First thing first, you need to find out if you are an employee, not in the normal sense, but legal sense. This directly affect the copyright issue, outside your work hours. If you need their consent on take on other clients, that would be iffy. There are a number of things a court would look at to determine this. You may think you are a consultant(thus tools you develop during the course is yours, so long it is outside contracted hours), the court may not think it this way. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Which License Should I Use?
I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest. There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas. I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a few programs. These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports, etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still pretty shaky on Python. How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them, it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't think I'd be too upset. I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However, please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on the other thread. Ron Britton (The gibberish on the next line really is my email address.) nk67v8o02 at sneakemail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your issue here. I tend to try to get clients to agree that code that comes in from outside can go back out under whatever license it came in on. That makes it clear up front that the results go back to the community, which means you can get at them. If you deal with this issue, the license that best meets your description are the BSD-like license, which have been called copycenter licenses. They place no restrictions whatsoever on the the further use. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? Not at all. The code that you write on your employer's time probably belongs to the employer (you'll need to read your contract and the relevant state law or talk to a competent lawyer in your area for full details). Just because you added that code to a GPLed project doesn't mean that the added code would be released under the GPL. If your employer had an interest in keeping you from using it after you left them, they simply wouldn't release the code at all. They wouldn't be able to turn it into a proprietary project using your GPLed code, but they could prevent you from taking the added code with you. Also, the employer may still own the copyright on software that you write on your own time if it substantially relates to your job (as it seems it does). Again, you will have to read your contract and the relevant state law or possibly talk to a lawyer to find out. I am not such a lawyer, and, of course, none of this is legal advice. That said, assuming that you can release the code under an open source license and given your lack of an agenda, the BSD license seems appropriate. You may also want to read this Licensing HOWTO: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/Licensing-HOWTO.html It's a draft, but it contains useful information. Also, Larry Rosen's book _Open Source Licensing_ is quite helpful (and free!). http://rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm -- Robert Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the fields of hell where the grass grows high Are the graves of dreams allowed to die. -- Richard Harter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which license should I use?
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your issue here. If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer will be able to sell it, just like anyone else. -- Björn Lindström [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student of computational linguistics, Uppsala University, Sweden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: I've been watching the flame war about licenses with some interest. There are many motivations for those who participate in this sector, so disagreements over licenses reflect those agendas. I don't have an agenda, at least not right now. I do plan on writing a few programs. These will be tools I need for firmware testing. They will be relatively simple things like tools for breaking down data by its structure for easy viewing, sending commands/macros over serial ports, etc. Similar things exist, but they don't do everything I need. These will also be excellent learning opportunities for me, since I'm still pretty shaky on Python. How do I decide on a license? Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons? I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them, it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't think I'd be too upset. I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? I'm open to suggestions as to which licenses to consider. However, please try to keep the conversation to the decision process or what sounds like it is best for this purpose. Let's keep the broader issue of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization on the other thread. Ron Britton (The gibberish on the next line really is my email address.) nk67v8o02 at sneakemail.com As mentioned earlier, your employer may lay some claim to the result if it substantially relates to your work. Using your employer's equipment to develop or test the code might also be an indication that it is a work for hire. Either that, or you misused the company's assets for personal gain. Neither sounds very attractive. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which license should I use?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Björn Lindström) writes: Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IANAL, but I don't believe the GPL helps in this situation. It places conditions on redistributing the code; it doesn't force you to redistribute modifieed code. Your employers could refuse to let you take the code with you because they own partial copyright on it. They couldn't sell it later because of the GPL on it, but that's not your issue here. If they have the rights to the code, they can sell it, under the GPL or any license of their choosing. In addition, if you GPL it, your employer will be able to sell it, just like anyone else. You're right - the GPL doesn't prevent them from selling it; it just requires that they make source available to anyone they sell it to, and prevents them from preventing people who buy it from giving it away to anyone they want. mike -- Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
mojosam wrote: How do I decide on a license? If you want to look at this from a legal point of view, I highly recommend reading Larry Rosen's book, Open Source Licensing. It covers issue you would never have thought of without studying law, and gives good advice (IMHO). Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, Robert Kern wrote: You may also want to read this Licensing HOWTO: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/Licensing-HOWTO.html It's a draft, but it contains useful information. It's worth mentioning that ESR, who wrote that, is zealously pro-BSD-style-license. That's not to say that the article isn't useful and/or balanced, but it's something to bear in mind while reading it. tom -- Science runs with us, making us Gods. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Which License Should I Use?
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, mojosam wrote: How do I decide on a license? You decide on what obligations you wish to impose on licensees, then pick a license which embodies those. There are basically three levels of obligation: 1. None. 2. Derivatives of the code must be open source. 3. Derivatives of the code and any other code which uses it must be open source. By 'derivatives', i mean modified versions. By 'open source', i really mean 'under the same license as the original code'. So, the licenses corresponding to these obligations are: 1. A BSD-style license. I say 'BSD-style' because there are about a hojillion licenses which say more or less the same thing - and it's quite amazing just how many words can be split spelling out the absence of obligations - but the grand-daddy of them all is the BSD license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php 2. The GNU Lesser General Public License: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html 3. The GNU General Public License: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html The GPL licenses place quite severe restrictions on the freedom of programmers using the code, but you often hear GNU people banging on about freedom - 'free software', 'free as in speech', etc. What you have to realise is that they're not talking about the freedom of the programmers, but about the freedom of the software. The logic, i think, is that the freedom of the code is the key to the freedom of the end-users: applying the GPL to your code means that other programmers will be forced to apply to to their code, which means that users of that code will get the benefits of open source. Having said all that, you can only license software if you own the copyright on it, and as has been pointed out, in this case, you might not. Are there any web sites that summarize the pros and cons? The GNU project has a quite useful list of licenses, with their takes on them: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Bear in mind that the GNU project is strongly in favour of the GPL, so they're perhaps not as positive about non-GPL licenses as would be fair. This dude's written about this a bit: http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html I guess I don't care too much about how other people use it. These things won't be comprehensive enough or have broad enough appeal that somebody will slap a new coat of paint on them and try to sell them. I guess I don't care if somebody incorporates them into something bigger. If somebody were to add features to them, it would be nice to get the code and keep the derivative work as open source, but I don't think that matters all that much to me. If somebody can add value and find a way of making money at it, I don't think I'd be too upset. To me, it sounds like you want a BSD-style license. But then i'm a BSD afficionado myself, so perhaps i would say that! In fact, while were on the subject, let me plug my own license page: http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/The_Amazing_Disappearing_BSD_License.html I apply 0-clause BSD to all the code i release these days. I will be doing the bulk of the coding on my own time, because I need to be able to take these tools with me when I change employers. However, I'm sure that in the course of using these tools, I will need to spend time on the job debugging or tweaking them. I do not want my current employer to have any claim on my code in any way. Usually if you program on company time, that makes what you do a work for hire. I can't contaminate my code like that. Does that mean the GPL is the strongest defense in this situation? The license you choose has absolutely no bearing on this. Either the copyright belongs to you, in which case you're fine, or to your employer, in which case you don't have the right to license it, so its moot. Let's keep the broader issue of which license will bring about the fall of Western Civilization You mean the GPL? on the other thread. Oops! tom -- Science runs with us, making us Gods. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
