Home » Community » Coffee corner » What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17503 is a reply to message #17502] |
Mon, 18 August 2008 14:26   |
captainc
Messages: 278
Registered: December 2006
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Concerning the MIT license (From Wikipedia):
| Quote: |
The license can be modified to suit particular needs. For example, the Free Software Foundation agreed in 1998 to use a modified MIT License for ncurses, which adds this clause:[2]
Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization.
|
What are the developers' thoughts on this statement? Is it necessary to have it in the license? This is a key difference between BSD and MIT.
BSD States:
| Quote: |
* * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 18 August 2008 14:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17504 is a reply to message #17503] |
Mon, 18 August 2008 14:37 |
gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
amrein, I don't follow your conclusions about the BSD license. Wikipedia also describes BSD . I *think* "the license" is describing the use of U++ source - in either source or binary form, and does not apply to TheIDE binary itself. Any binaries distributed by U++ need their own license.
If ultimate++ was released with BSD license it might look something like this
<part1>
Copyright (c) 2008, Ultimate++, Mirek Fidler et al...
All right reserved
<part2>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met <list of conditions>
<part3> disclaimer
The list of conditions requires that re-distributions of either source or binary must include all of part1, part2, part3 verbatim - part1, part2, part3 we call "the license". "the license" refers explicitly to U++ authors.
In the second of the 3 conditions, there is an implied part (in italics) as follows
Re-distributions of source codein binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice ... etc.
"Re-distributions" means - distributed by me, or my users or my users users etc.
As far as I can see, this means
1. If I distribute object code, executable code or anything at all (binary) that was built (partially or entirely) from any or all of the U++ source, whether modified or not, "the license" must be distributed with it, including explicit reference to U++ authors. I must require that all subsequent distribution of such binary by anyone, must be accompanied by "the license". I can ban re-distribution of the binary by my users if I want.
2. I don't have to release source code, either my own or that derived from U++. If I re-distribute source that is derived from U++ source (modified or un-modified), it must retain "the license".
Open to interpretation
"the license" says
<Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided ... 3 conditions are met>
Does this mean that if I want to distribute source, my users can also distribute and use the source (in binary or source form) without payment of royalties to me? Does the license permit me to apply additional restrictions to the use of source I supply - such as additional copyrights and licenses?
What does "source code must retain the license" mean - does "the license" have to be embedded in every source file.
MIT license doesn't seem to require keeping the disclaimer.
I vote we get some clarification on these things before changing the license and then try to make the license itself clearer and not open to interpretation.
Graeme
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17506 is a reply to message #17505] |
Mon, 18 August 2008 17:46 |
 |
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| gprentice wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 14:37 |
...
As far as I can see, this means
1. If I distribute object code, executable code or anything at all (binary) that was built (partially or entirely) from any or all of the U++ source, whether modified or not, "the license" must be distributed with it, including explicit reference to U++ authors. I must require that all subsequent distribution of such binary by anyone, must be accompanied by "the license". I can ban re-distribution of the binary by my users if I want.
|
In the U++ BSD like license, they tell you: This License does not apply to any software that links to the libraries provided by this software (statically or dynamically), but only to the software provided.
This license make a difference between "TheIDE + tools + U++" (the software provided), "Your application" (Your source - U++) and the provided libraries ( U++ ). It doesn't apply to "Your source" but only to "TheIDE + tools + U++". Your are not distributing "TheIDE + tools + U++" but only "Your source" + "U++".
So, the question could be, should you acknowledge for U++, a part of the wall "Software provided"? In this license, nothing force you to. BSD license don't clearly state that a part should style be covered by the BSD license. It only talks about "TheIDE + tools + U++" combinations (the software provided).
As long as an interpretation is possible, you can't force the receiver to follow yours. You can't have something smaller than a source file (we don't care about not saved bytes in computer memory). You could think: The only way to prevent this issue to happen is to include the (c) and a reference for the licence in each source file. Like this, all source files are protected from redistribution without BSD license acknowledgement. But even if you put the license into each files, the problem is back if someone take part of the source code and add it in his own source file.
Note: There's no (c) nor BSD licence reference into the Ultimate++ source files. Only one file with the license for the wall provided software (TheIDE + tools + U++).
To resolve this, GNU ask you to add the (c) and reference into each covered files. Their licenses (LGPL & GPL) state clearly the difference between part and complete source and cover them both.
The MIT license tell you that the wall software and also part of it are still covered by the MIT license. As you can see, they make the distinction between part and complete source to prevent this issue.
I am missing something?
| Quote: |
2. I don't have to release source code, either my own or that derived from U++. If I re-distribute source that is derived from U++ source (modified or un-modified), it must retain "the license".
|
This is where the problem is. BSD and BSD like licenses don't make a difference between part and wall source code or binary. They tell you to keep the license + copyright if you distribute the source and to acknowledge if you distribute the binary only. U++ libraries is a part of the provided software. See my previous explanation about how the license apply to a part of the source.
| captainc wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 14:53 |
I have a second question:
What do the devs think about relicensing? Do they want to prevent derivative works from being completely relicensed?
Relicensing:
Option 1: Any derivaties (additions or modifications) of the software can be relicensed without restriction.
Option 2: Derivatives of the software must contain the same license. Proprietary additions, in the form of new add-on modules, to the software can be licensed however you want.
One question to answer that will influence this is: Do you want persistence in derivative works? There are good and bad sides to this. Ie. It could be an under-performing derivative with your name on it. Or it could be a great piece of software with your name on it!
|
This is why I prefer the official BSD license (=Don't keep the copyright if you make a modification in our software).
I'm not answering your question. I'm not one of the copyright holder, only a messenger.
[Updated on: Mon, 18 August 2008 18:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17527 is a reply to message #17524] |
Tue, 19 August 2008 14:17 |
bytefield
Messages: 210
Registered: December 2007
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
I vote for MIT license because it is most permissive than others... you can modify the source code and release it with a new copyright and a new license. You have to retain copyright in source code just when you do a redistribution of full copy.
What about public domain and forgetting all license stuff and incompatibility? See SQLite copyright for example.
BTW, i like sqlite source files...
| Quote: |
** The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
** a legal notice, here is a blessing:
**
** May you do good and not evil.
** May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
** May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
|
It is free to our conscience how we use the source...
Maybe after we clarify which license is better for Upp and for us, we should re-post this pool for people who answered with " I don't know" to have chance to choose a license...
cdabbd745f1234c2751ee1f932d1dd75
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17536 is a reply to message #17524] |
Tue, 19 August 2008 16:25 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
BSD license yes. BSD like license = status unknown. On the U++ website you can read BSD licence but this is not the official licence but a modified one.
| Quote: |
yet item 2 seems to require distribution of source ??
amrein said this
| Quote: |
BSD license = Do whatever you want. If you release unmodified source, you must keep the copyright and license in the source. If you only release an unmodified TheIDE+U++ binary, you must tell about this license + keep the copyright. You can release modified TheIDE+U++ (binary or source) with whatever license you want but you must change the copyright.
|
I haven't got the slightest idea how you can conclude this when the BSD license says this
| Quote: |
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
|
i.e. the terms of distribution are the same whether the source is modified or not - and - the only requirement is that the license is included verbatim/unmodified - meaning that the distributor can charge money for it if he wants and I cannot ask for royalties.
|
In the U++ BSD-like licence, they give you the right to deal in the Software without restriction. They make a difference between "Software provided" = "TheIDE+tools+U++", "libraries provided by this software" = "U++", "Your own source".
If you copy the software provided (src or bin) => "copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included.."
If you modify or merge the source => Well, no part of the license restrict your right. They already give you all right "without restriction" at the beginning
This is an English language issue. "Software" has no plural. And when you say "source code", you don't know if it means the entire tarball or part of the source code.
| Quote: |
Also, what do you mean by "wall software" - I don't understand this term.
Graeme
|
Entire software. The complete tarball. "TheIDE+tools+U++".
[Updated on: Wed, 20 August 2008 03:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17538 is a reply to message #17537] |
Tue, 19 August 2008 19:07 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| cbpporter wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 17:21 |
So let me see if I understand: with BSD, MIT and MPL we can distribute our software that links with U++ libraries under any license we desire. And we are not required to acknowledge in about box/copyright/documentation that the software was developed with U++ (I will do that anyway). And with BSD we can promote our product as being written with U++, but we can't promote our fork of U++ as being developed by U++ team.
With LGPL we can do the same as long as we keep dynamic linking (which is not yet possible), and with GPL we have to go GPL and opensource any software developed with U++.
|
Well yes.
[Updated on: Tue, 19 August 2008 19:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17557 is a reply to message #17553] |
Wed, 20 August 2008 15:20 |
gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| luzr wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 23:48 |
Well, I looks like BSD is going to win.
I guess it is the most logical and least "expensive" step, in fact we are not changing anything, just fixing the license wording.
Should we wait more or should I just "fix" it?
Mirek
|
I don't think you should change the license yet. As far as I can see, with BSD license, you can't use U++ to develop commercial software because if you use any U++ source in your product, you have to include the BSD license in your product (even if you only supply binaries), which potentially gives your customers the right to sell or give away your product.
The BSD license says
| Quote: |
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
|
My question is : "redistribution and use of what?"
The BSD license doesn't make it clear that what is meant is
Redistribution and use of the source codein source and binary forms ...
Also, I would like to see clarification of whether you can distribute U++ derived source code along with your own source code, with your own non-BSD license applying to your own non-U++-derived source code (even though it #includes U++ headers) - meaning that you can distribute all your source code without making your product worthless.
With BSD license, if all you distribute is binaries, you still have to include the license in about box or something - why is that ??? If the license applies to source code only then what is the point of including a license saying "permission is granted to redistribute ..." when you haven't given them any source code to redistribute. The "about box" should only have to include the copyright part and disclaimer, not the list of permissions.
BSD license is murky.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070114093427179
Graeme
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17563 is a reply to message #17494] |
Wed, 20 August 2008 20:17 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Well, sure, when someone want to choose a good license it becomes a mess.
BSD, MS, GNU. They all have good lawyers.
I voted for BSD but if I could, I would choose now "public domain" as Luzr was proposing in another thread. SQLite is the most widely deployed SQL database engine in the world. It is used in countless desktop computer applications as well as consumer electronic devices including cellphones, PDAs, and MP3 players. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain.
- If someone release a modified version in the "public domain", U++ team can get it and merge the good change.
- If someone release it as proprietary software, well, as long as www.ultimatepp.org exist, I don't see why U++ team can't produce better code and completely open. FOSS is now so wide. You can't get a proprietary version without knowing about the open source one somewhere else.
- If a company want to use it, they can tell in their about menu that they use it and can release the modified source as "public domain" without any implication on their software and license.
This is the real meaning of free as in freedom. "Do whatever you want".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17575 is a reply to message #17569] |
Thu, 21 August 2008 11:16 |
|
amrein
Messages: 278
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| gprentice wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 01:12 |
...
Also, I'd really like to know how BSD can be OSI approved when it doesn't require distribution/ availability of source code.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses
I think I must be missing something.
|
His conclusion about the BSD license is not the conclusion of MS+GNU+OSI+Apple lawyers.
OSI is not the Free Software Fondation. As long as you release the source and permit modification+sell+redistribution, they don't care if the receiver release the new package as proprietary software. They accept license that are proprietary software friendly like BSD. FSF doesn't (or just with the LGPL but LGPL license protect the original source from been closed).
| Quote: |
What is the benefit of having a GNU or OSI approved license?
|
GNU + OSI + Proprietary software friendly => Your market can't be bigger. Your audience is the entire software market.
[Updated on: Thu, 21 August 2008 11:27] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17581 is a reply to message #17580] |
Thu, 21 August 2008 16:29 |
captainc
Messages: 278
Registered: December 2006
Location: New Jersey, USA
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
Just took a look at the Common Public License (CPL) and I like it too. http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php
I also like the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) http://opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
I like them because they cover things like patenting, where it disallows patenting original works.
From CDDL:
| Quote: |
2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
...
(d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b)
above, no patent license is granted: (1) for code
that You delete from the Original Software, or
(2) for infringements caused by: (i) the
modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the
combination of the Original Software with other software
or devices.
3.1. Availability of Source Code.
Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise
make available in Executable form must also be made
available in Source Code form and that Source Code form
must be distributed only under the terms of this License.
You must include a copy of this License with every copy of
the Source Code form of the Covered Software You
distribute or otherwise make available. You must inform
recipients of any such Covered Software in Executable form
as to how they can obtain such Covered Software in Source
Code form in a reasonable manner on or through a medium
customarily used for software exchange.
3.5. Distribution of Executable Versions.
You may distribute the Executable form of the Covered
Software under the terms of this License or under the
terms of a license of Your choice, which may contain terms
different from this License, provided that You are in
compliance with the terms of this License and that the
license for the Executable form does not attempt to limit
or alter the recipients rights in the Source Code
form from the rights set forth in this License. If You
distribute the Covered Software in Executable form under a
different license, You must make it absolutely clear that
any terms which differ from this License are offered by
You alone, not by the Initial Developer or Contributor.
You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and
every Contributor for any liability incurred by the
Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any
such terms You offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17589 is a reply to message #17586] |
Thu, 21 August 2008 17:14 |
 |
mirek
Messages: 14290
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
IMO, before going for exotic options, one of reasons to fix the license is to choose something well known.
IMO, there are 3 most widely known and used licenses: BSD, GPL and LGPL.
BSD got most votes in this poll, we already claim that we are BSD licensed (and we are with different wording), so the most straightforward fix to me appears to be copying "official" BSD over current license files.
Otherwise, more we digg into this issue, more nonsense we produce. Let us do it and move on... 
Mirek
P.S.: That said, I voted for MIT. But I respect the majority and BSD really makes the best sense.
[Updated on: Thu, 21 August 2008 17:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17602 is a reply to message #17600] |
Fri, 22 August 2008 08:19 |
|
mirek
Messages: 14290
Registered: November 2005
|
Ultimate Member |
|
|
| gprentice wrote on Thu, 21 August 2008 22:59 |
| Quote: |
P.S.: That said, I voted for MIT. But I respect the majority and BSD really makes the best sense.
|
Well it's not a majority any more coz I hadn't voted, and now I've voted for "don't know". Also amrein says he rescinds BSD vote.
|
We cannot have "I don't know" license. Means BSD still has the majority of voices:)
| Quote: |
If it makes the best sense, how come I didn't get a sensible answer from you or anyone else on all the questions I asked in this thread?
|
Because I guess nobody really cares. I do not think the logic in wording is that much important, this is not code but lawyer's stuff.
IMO much more important is how BSD is commonly interpreted.
Mirek
[Updated on: Fri, 22 August 2008 08:20] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17605 is a reply to message #17602] |
Fri, 22 August 2008 13:11 |
gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
|
Experienced Member |
|
|
| Quote: |
IMO much more important is how BSD is commonly interpreted
|
ok, well it's universally accepted that "new BSD" license is permissive and "ok" for proprietary software.
Since you will be the owner of any such "new U++" license, can you answer these questions?
If I sell an executable (but no source code) built partly from U++ source, I have to include the "new U++" license somewhere in the documentation. Can I also include an EULA that says whatever I like (e.g. this software can be used on one computer only), and if it can't say anything I like, what restrictions are there on what the EULA can say?
If I develop some source code that is NOT derived from U++ source (but might include U++ headers), can I distribute/sell this source (along with U++ source), but prevent anyone else from selling/distributing my source?
Can you explain what the BSD-related re-licensing issue on this page is (approx the 7th question) and whether it's relevant to U++?
https://osi.osuosl.org/wiki/help/license
Can you explain why the OSI link is https and not http?
Graeme
<here's a copy of the faq question from the OSI page>
Q: Can I always "relicense" BSD licensed-software under a new license?
If you define relicensing as "sublicensing, possibly under additional terms and conditions which do not contradict the terms and conditions of an original licensor's permissive license", then the answer is generally "yes" -- provided you also retain the original copyright information. However, strictly speaking, you can only modify the license of a "derivative work", and opinions differ on how much change is required to qualify as a derivative work. The MIT license and Academic Free License, for example, freely allow "trivial" sublicensing (without any other changes) as long as the copyright is preserved. Conversely, the Apache 2.0 license only allows sublicensing for "Derivative Works", which it defines as "original works of authorship" -- meaning non-trivial additions. The new BSD license, unfortunately, is silent on this point. If you are planning to "trivially relicense" BSD software, you are encouraged to first check with the copyright holder and/or your own legal counsel.
[Updated on: Fri, 22 August 2008 13:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 01 14:27:15 GMT+2 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01066 seconds
|
U++ framework
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
1 / 6%
!
