U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

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