Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » Coffee corner » What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!!
What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17494] Mon, 18 August 2008 09:00 Go to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
Experienced Member

Utimate++ license[ 18 votes ]
1. Keep the old Ultimate++ license 1 / 6%
2. Use the official BSD license 7 / 39%
3. Use the MIT license 2 / 11%
4. Use the MPL (mozilla) license 0 / 0%
5. Use the LGPL license 0 / 0%
6. Use the GPL license 0 / 0%
7. Release Ultimate++ without license (public domain) 2 / 11%
8. I don't know 6 / 33%

For more information, you can have a look here:

Official BSD license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Current BSD like Ultimate++ license: http://www.ultimatepp.org/app$ide$About$en-us.html

MIT licence: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

MPL (mozilla) license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php

GNU LGPL license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.php

GNU GPL license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.php

Other OSI approved licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
Why this poll? Because the current license is not GNU or OSI approved. It's a BSD like license. It's not the official one.

[Updated on: Mon, 18 August 2008 10:32]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17496 is a reply to message #17494] Mon, 18 August 2008 09:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
Quote:

Why this poll? Because the current license is not GNU or OSI approved. It's a BSD like license. It's not the official one.

Would distributing it under official BSD license (not just BSD like) make any difference regarding compatibility with GNU/OSI. Sorry, I can't tell by reading the specifications Smile.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17500 is a reply to message #17494] Mon, 18 August 2008 10:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
Experienced Member
The current BSD like license is not the official BSD one. Nor GNU nor OSI (open source initiative) have read it and approved it.

The official BSD license is OSI+GNU approved.

The official BSD license and the MIT licence are very permissive licence. They are completely proprietary software friendly and in the same time FOSS approved.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17501 is a reply to message #17500] Mon, 18 August 2008 10:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
Well, I don't know what to say. Current BSD like license is almost identical to MIT (I diffed it), with only a few extra clauses, which make it quite similar to official BSD, yet the wording is different. MIT doesn't require the source acknowledgment that Mirek wants. And MPL is far too complicated and might confuse other people.

So I think BSD would be the choice.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17502 is a reply to message #17501] Mon, 18 August 2008 11:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
Experienced Member
cbpporter wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 10:48


MIT doesn't require the source acknowledgment that Mirek wants. And MPL is far too complicated and might confuse other people.

So I think BSD would be the choice.


- With the BSD license, the current BSD like license or the MIT one, acknowledgment is require only if you release the complete TheIDE+U++ in binary or source form without modification.
- The BSD license and the current BSD like license don't force acknowledgment if you release a modified TheIDE+U++ (bin or src) and you can use any license you want for this modified TheIDE+U++ (src and bin).
- The BSD license force you to change the (c)opyrigth accordingly if you make any modification into TheIDE+U++ (src or binary release).
- The MIT licence force you to keep the (c)opyrigth and license in the provided source if you make part or wall of TheIDE+U++ source available.

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.

U++ BSD like license = BSD licence + "you can also keep our copyright in the source code even if you make modifications. You can tell that this wall source is our source code without saying anything about your modifications."

MIT license = BSD license - change copyright holders if you modify TheIDE or U++ + even in part or modified source code from us you must use MIT license with our copyright

Hopping I'm not doing any mistake here.

I voted for the official BSD licence. It protect against malicious use of U++ authors names in modified release.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17503 is a reply to message #17502] Mon, 18 August 2008 14:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
captainc is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gprentice is currently offline  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 #17505 is a reply to message #17504] Mon, 18 August 2008 14:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
captainc is currently offline  captainc
Messages: 278
Registered: December 2006
Location: New Jersey, USA
Experienced Member
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!
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17506 is a reply to message #17505] Mon, 18 August 2008 17:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
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 #17507 is a reply to message #17501] Mon, 18 August 2008 19:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12096
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Mon, 18 August 2008 04:48

MIT doesn't require the source acknowledgment that Mirek wants.


Well, I can live without it Smile It is not important.

Mirek
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17524 is a reply to message #17507] Tue, 19 August 2008 13:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gprentice is currently offline  gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
Experienced Member
amrein said this
Quote:

I am missing something?



I have no idea coz I am totally lost.

According to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license

the BSD license meets the definition of open source as described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

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.

Also, what do you mean by "wall software" - I don't understand this term.

Graeme
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17527 is a reply to message #17524] Tue, 19 August 2008 14:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
bytefield is currently offline  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 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
Experienced Member
gprentice wrote on Tue, 19 August 2008 13:56

amrein said this
Quote:

I am missing something?



I have no idea coz I am totally lost.

According to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license

the BSD license meets the definition of open source as described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition



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 #17537 is a reply to message #17536] Tue, 19 August 2008 17:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
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++.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17538 is a reply to message #17537] Tue, 19 August 2008 19:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
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 #17543 is a reply to message #17494] Wed, 20 August 2008 02:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gprentice is currently offline  gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
Experienced Member
amrein wrote
Quote:

In the BSD licence, they make a difference between "Software provided"


The BSD license at the link posted by you
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
doesn't mention the word "provided" and only mentions the word "software" in the third of the three conditions, so I'm guessing that when you use the term "BSD license" here, you're referring to the U++ license - which makes it pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion with you when you're so imprecise in your terminology.

Graeme
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17545 is a reply to message #17494] Wed, 20 August 2008 03:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
amrein is currently offline  amrein
Messages: 209
Registered: August 2008
Location: France
Experienced Member
Your guessing is good. Smile

Thanks. I will fix it.
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17546 is a reply to message #17545] Wed, 20 August 2008 04:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gprentice is currently offline  gprentice
Messages: 260
Registered: November 2005
Location: New Zealand
Experienced Member
amrein wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 13:25

Your guessing is good. Smile

Thanks. I will fix it.


I wouldn't bother fixing it coz it seems nobody else is having a problem understanding anything except for me.

For example, cbpporter says

Quote:

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++


If you link with U++ libraries then you are redistributing "the software" in binary form and the BSD license says
Quote:

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the ... <license>.


The fact that the software was developed with U++ is irrelevant - it's only what gets distributed that matters. If you distribute "U++ software" (whatever that is - open to interpretation) you must "include" <the license>. Since U++ libraries are part of U++ software by any reasonable interpretation, then you must acknowledge that in documenation/ about box, regardless of whether the libraries are modified or not.

Graeme
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17551 is a reply to message #17546] Wed, 20 August 2008 12:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1400
Registered: September 2007
Senior Contributor
gprentice wrote on Wed, 20 August 2008 05:19


If you link with U++ libraries then you are redistributing "the software" in binary form and the BSD license says

The fact that the software was developed with U++ is irrelevant - it's only what gets distributed that matters. If you distribute "U++ software" (whatever that is - open to interpretation) you must "include" <the license>. Since U++ libraries are part of U++ software by any reasonable interpretation, then you must acknowledge that in documenation/ about box, regardless of whether the libraries are modified or not.

Graeme


I could very well be that I don't understand to much out of these licensing issues. But if I must include the U++ license verbatim, then how is it possible to distribute my own software under another license?
Re: What license Ultimate++ should use? Tell us!!! [message #17553 is a reply to message #17551] Wed, 20 August 2008 13:48 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 12096
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
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
Previous Topic: Linux Mandriva
Next Topic: Using .NET components
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Nov 12 19:35:36 CET 2019

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01622 seconds