This whole thread started because I was getting a headache by all the licenses out there,
so I created my own. (not really helping the issue huh? hehe)
So now this thread seems to have become a list of licenses instead,
which is cool by me, give authors choice and guidance, discuss, etc.
Suggestions for other good and maybe not so well known licenses?
Software License Templates
Software License Templates
Last edited by Rescator on Fri Aug 26, 2005 8:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
"In other words, ESOS allows the use of ESOS code in closed source projects,
or in ESOS projects, or in other projects using other forms of licensed code
that has no issue co-exsisting with ESOS code licensing.
ESOS code itself has no issue co-existing with any licensing scheme,
so you can literally mix and match ESOS code with other code as much as you want!"
Nice ! I just received a mail yesterday from the author of a GPL'ed lib i was using (Secret Rabbit Code by Erik De Casto Lopo) wich post publicly in a forum that i was violating the license !
I thought it was because of not releasing the sourcecode (it is available on request thought) but no !
He is not agree about the use of this code with a non GPL project even when the project is a freeware and a lot of it's component is GPL'ed
This really hurt me and then i finally understood that there seems to be a debate about this ... as i hate slashdoted debate, i was enough and deleted the program from the net.
It is nice to see such license
or in ESOS projects, or in other projects using other forms of licensed code
that has no issue co-exsisting with ESOS code licensing.
ESOS code itself has no issue co-existing with any licensing scheme,
so you can literally mix and match ESOS code with other code as much as you want!"
Nice ! I just received a mail yesterday from the author of a GPL'ed lib i was using (Secret Rabbit Code by Erik De Casto Lopo) wich post publicly in a forum that i was violating the license !
I thought it was because of not releasing the sourcecode (it is available on request thought) but no !
He is not agree about the use of this code with a non GPL project even when the project is a freeware and a lot of it's component is GPL'ed
This really hurt me and then i finally understood that there seems to be a debate about this ... as i hate slashdoted debate, i was enough and deleted the program from the net.
It is nice to see such license
Last edited by KarLKoX on Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah! Sadly GPL and even LGPL is so "open" that it's restrictive, ironic huh?
That is why I created this license, and why it has 5 simple rules.
And not pages of "legalese" that hurts my brain,
I'm fully capable of hurting my own brain just coding
That is why I created this license, and why it has 5 simple rules.
And not pages of "legalese" that hurts my brain,
I'm fully capable of hurting my own brain just coding
Last edited by Rescator on Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Heya!
This seems to be pretty fair!
@KarLKox: Ack. That sort of thing is a real begger.
GPL is as restrictive and "unfree" as most EULAs. It seems to take control away from the author of the additional code. It seems you could write a 10 meg app and just by using a two line GPLed trick lose control (of your licencing options at the very least) to the 2-liner.
(I think some people who use GPL are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to look cool and liberal but they want control as well.)
PS: The following code is now GPL'ed:
If you use this code in any PureBasic application you must release the source!
This seems to be pretty fair!
@KarLKox: Ack. That sort of thing is a real begger.
GPL is as restrictive and "unfree" as most EULAs. It seems to take control away from the author of the additional code. It seems you could write a 10 meg app and just by using a two line GPLed trick lose control (of your licencing options at the very least) to the 2-liner.
(I think some people who use GPL are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to look cool and liberal but they want control as well.)
PS: The following code is now GPL'ed:
Code: Select all
ID = OpenWindow(#const,x,y,w,h,Flags,Title$[,ParentWinID])@}--`--,-- A rose by any other name ..
> He is not agree about the use of this code with a non GPL project even
> when the project is a freeware and a lot of it's component is GPL'ed
Too bad for him! If the source you're using is GPL, then he cannot legally
do anything to stop you. If he fails to understand that, that's his problem.
Don't let him stop you... you're doing nothing wrong under the GPL license.
> when the project is a freeware and a lot of it's component is GPL'ed
Too bad for him! If the source you're using is GPL, then he cannot legally
do anything to stop you. If he fails to understand that, that's his problem.
Don't let him stop you... you're doing nothing wrong under the GPL license.
I compile using 5.31 (x86) on Win 7 Ultimate (64-bit).
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
"PureBasic won't be object oriented, period" - Fred.
Hi !
Erik told me that he added his own clause wich can't allow to link with a non GPL project, taken from his site :
It isn't clear thought it isn't easy to know what to do and i don't want to be in conflict with the author of the lib
GPL is not open as it should be ...
Erik told me that he added his own clause wich can't allow to link with a non GPL project, taken from his site :
The debate is here.2005-08-09 : There is a certain amount of debate about whether non-GPL software can dynamically link to GPL libraries. I side with the FSF and assert that an executable dynamically linked to libsamplerate is a derivative work of libsamplerate and is therefore subject to the GNU GPL.
It isn't clear thought it isn't easy to know what to do and i don't want to be in conflict with the author of the lib
GPL is not open as it should be ...
Licencing issues and the madness of sw patents is what puts me off doing any programming at all, especially trying to establish a business around a sw product. There's always the chance that something could pop up at any time to scupper your plans, devestatingly if you are at an advanced stage. I also suspect that the pro-patent brigade strategy is actually to sit on a patent until a business(es) is in a position where they have no option but to agree to any demands simply because they have invested too much time, effort and money. One might argue that the developer should do their homework before embarking on a project but who could predict some of the ridiculous patents handed out recently!?
Of course a developer could always go work for a "body shop" but, in the west at least, rates are severly down from even only a few years ago. Add to this you are always susceptable to outsourcing/offshoring and you start to question if it's worth the hassle.
That's your "Daily Gloom" brought to you by "Doom-monger Doc" - enjoy!
Of course a developer could always go work for a "body shop" but, in the west at least, rates are severly down from even only a few years ago. Add to this you are always susceptable to outsourcing/offshoring and you start to question if it's worth the hassle.
That's your "Daily Gloom" brought to you by "Doom-monger Doc" - enjoy!
-
Hatonastick
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:50 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
- Contact:
I wrote a long answer here before realising that I was agreeing with everything said. So here's the short version: Ditto!
Now for the longer version.
Licensing issues involving third party libraries, tools etc. for commercial, shareware and even some freeware authors is a bit of a minefield. I personally feel that many of the so-called "open source" licenses are adding to the minefield, not making it easier to traverse. That's why I use my own.
The way I see it if you write all your own code (not sabotaged by third party licenses), only release the source code if you want anyone to use it. Don't start slapping awkward licenses on it. Release it and make it free for all to use, or don't release it in source form.
I realise there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with me (hence the debate mentioned earlier), but that's fine. Would be a boring world if we all thought the same.
Now for the longer version.
Licensing issues involving third party libraries, tools etc. for commercial, shareware and even some freeware authors is a bit of a minefield. I personally feel that many of the so-called "open source" licenses are adding to the minefield, not making it easier to traverse. That's why I use my own.
The way I see it if you write all your own code (not sabotaged by third party licenses), only release the source code if you want anyone to use it. Don't start slapping awkward licenses on it. Release it and make it free for all to use, or don't release it in source form.
I realise there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree with me (hence the debate mentioned earlier), but that's fine. Would be a boring world if we all thought the same.
Please forgive my poor English, I'm an Australian.
There is need for a licence, to minimise liability.
These two:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
appear to do that, without hammering authors who use MIT-licenced sources.
Your opinions?
These two:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
appear to do that, without hammering authors who use MIT-licenced sources.
Your opinions?
@}--`--,-- A rose by any other name ..
-
Hatonastick
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:50 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
- Contact: