|
|
|
Home » Community » Coffee corner » What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!!
| 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: 14257
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: 14257
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 09 17:48:55 CEST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02092 seconds
|
|
|
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
!
