www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - DUI license

reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
(instead of LGPL)

Is that a good idea?
Does it makes any difference?
Will you feel more confortable?

I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.

Ant
Nov 16 2004
next sibling parent reply Daniel Siegmann <gandalf optonline.net> writes:
Ant wrote:
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)
 
 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?
 
 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
 
 Ant

For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?
Nov 16 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
In article <cneb20$22hk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
Ant wrote:
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)
 
 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?
 
 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
 
 Ant

For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?

Here's the legalese: LGPL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php jcc7
Nov 17 2004
parent reply Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cnfrau$17f8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
In article <cneb20$22hk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
Ant wrote:
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)
 
 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?
 
 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
 
 Ant

For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?

Here's the legalese: LGPL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php jcc7

I need to review all this. It's too complicated. I might end changing to a different license that allows the use and modification and distribution of the DUI in any form (source or binary) but ensures the credit for the initial development is not lost. that would allow DUI to be distributed on the form generated by digc. I'll do my homework but I'm open to suggestions... :p Ant
Nov 17 2004
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cnfscn$18r4$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
In article <cnfrau$17f8$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
In article <cneb20$22hk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
Ant wrote:
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)
 
 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?
 
 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
 
 Ant

For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?

Here's the legalese: LGPL: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php jcc7

I need to review all this. It's too complicated. I might end changing to a different license that allows the use and modification and distribution of the DUI in any form (source or binary) but ensures the credit for the initial development is not lost. that would allow DUI to be distributed on the form generated by digc. I'll do my homework but I'm open to suggestions... :p Ant

If that is what you want to do, take a look into the BSD license. From my understanding, there are two primary forms: BSD w/ and w/o the advertisement clause. The "no advertisement" one is the one gaining the most popularity because it is GPL compatible. I believe that, as the original copyright holder, you can change the licensing terms on subsequent versions anyhow <but PLEASE don't take my word for it - look into it some more>. Here's a handy little link: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~mrusin/licencomp.html
Nov 17 2004
parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cnfulg$1c6d$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...

If that is what you want to do, take a look into the BSD license.

yes, I was lookking at it...
I believe that, as the original copyright holder, you can change the licensing
terms on subsequent versions anyhow <but PLEASE don't take my word for it - look
into it some more>.

that's on the sourceforge FAQ (or something) I'm gonna take their word for it.
Here's a handy little link: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~mrusin/licencomp.html

Ant
Nov 17 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:cne9dg$20gr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)

 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?

 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.

 Ant

I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will "do the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of someone stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is too short to worry about that :-) Plus with D so young I figure the easier it is to copy/paste code from others the better.
Nov 17 2004
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

 I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license:
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.
 It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will "do
 the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for
 staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of someone
 stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading
 licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is too
 short to worry about that :-)

Copylefted software is copyrighted so that it can stay free (speech). Otherwise, someone will eventually step in and stop those rights... See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The BSD license might be an acceptable middle grounds for you ? http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php --anders
Nov 17 2004
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:cnfunf$1c8d$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Ben Hinkle wrote:

 I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license:
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.
 It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will


 the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for
 staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of


 stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading
 licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is


 short to worry about that :-)

Copylefted software is copyrighted so that it can stay free (speech). Otherwise, someone will eventually step in and stop those rights... See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

But the public domain work is forever in the public domain so anyone can build from the same starting point and do whatever they want with it. If someone builds something non-free from it that's fine with me.
 The BSD license might be an acceptable middle grounds for you ?
 http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

 --anders

Nov 17 2004
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Ben Hinkle wrote:

Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.

:-) I've noted that parts of D is Public Domain as well... Such as phobos/std/stdint.d (or my very own stdutf.d) The D front-end is otherwise either Artistic or GPL. (the Digital Mars compiler dmd is not distributable) My own software is usually under the zlib/png license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php Some is under GPL or LGPL, just because the original was... (such as my Mac OS X ports of RPM and MikMod, for instance) Says GNU: (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html)
 The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
 public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program
 and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
 uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
 They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
 proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
 form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
 middleman has stripped it away.

I have written both kinds, and proprietary software too. It really depends on the project, which one to choose... But it's a serious matter to consider, *before* it gets ugly. On the other hand, it is probably off-topic for this list ? So I'll stop here. --anders
Nov 17 2004
next sibling parent Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cng1ha$1gra$1 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
My own software is usually under the zlib/png license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

I like this one too. seems that licenses are also a marketing venue for the product see: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ products or companies are displayed on the list. Ant
Nov 17 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent David Medlock <amedlock nospam.org> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Ben Hinkle wrote:
 
 Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.

:-) I've noted that parts of D is Public Domain as well... Such as phobos/std/stdint.d (or my very own stdutf.d) The D front-end is otherwise either Artistic or GPL. (the Digital Mars compiler dmd is not distributable) My own software is usually under the zlib/png license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php Some is under GPL or LGPL, just because the original was... (such as my Mac OS X ports of RPM and MikMod, for instance) Says GNU: (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html)
 The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
 public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program
 and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
 uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
 They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
 proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
 form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
 middleman has stripped it away.


Richard Stallman may have the best intentions, but his policies do little(imo) to help software move forward. His last sentence here is a complete lie. Unless someone hacks into all the servers which host the original code, everyone has the EXACT SAME rights as the 'middleman'. The two most popular pieces of open source software are both non-GPL( Apache and Mozilla ). I dont see anyone hurting because these packages can potentially be modified and released as retail. He talks about freedom then decides that freedom doesn't include selling closed software if one so desires. Personally selling software is a great thing: programmers get to pay their mortgage, eat, send kids to school... Personally I think the zlib license is the best. It only covers what you do with SOURCE not binaries.
Nov 17 2004
prev sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
news:cng1ha$1gra$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Ben Hinkle wrote:

Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.

:-) I've noted that parts of D is Public Domain as well... Such as phobos/std/stdint.d (or my very own stdutf.d) The D front-end is otherwise either Artistic or GPL. (the Digital Mars compiler dmd is not distributable)

I kindof wondered why some parts have the license they do.
 My own software is usually under the zlib/png license:
 http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

 Some is under GPL or LGPL, just because the original was...
 (such as my Mac OS X ports of RPM and MikMod, for instance)

 Says GNU: (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html)
 The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
 public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program
 and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
 uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
 They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
 proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
 form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
 middleman has stripped it away.


My goal (with D) is to make the world a better place. If someone (person A) takes my code and builds a closed-source product on it and people love that closed-source product then person A has made the world a better place. If they made it open source then the world would be in an even better place (most likely) but that is "gravy" in my opinion. If my license was restrictive enough that person A couldn't build that great product - for whatever reason - then the world is not a better place and I would have failed (or, I suppose, not suceeded as well as I could have). Getting some credit for making the world a better place would be nice but I trust the marketplace to take care of that.
 I have written both kinds, and proprietary software too.
 It really depends on the project, which one to choose...

agreed.
 But it's a serious matter to consider, *before* it gets ugly.
 On the other hand, it is probably off-topic for this list ?

 So I'll stop here.

me too.
 --anders

Nov 17 2004
prev sibling parent reply Charlie <Charlie_member pathlink.com> writes:
Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.

Charlie

In article <cnfu1s$1bds$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:cne9dg$20gr$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
 (instead of LGPL)

 Is that a good idea?
 Does it makes any difference?
 Will you feel more confortable?

 I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.

 Ant

I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will "do the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of someone stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is too short to worry about that :-) Plus with D so young I figure the easier it is to copy/paste code from others the better.

Nov 17 2004
parent reply J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:
Charlie wrote:
 Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.

Uh-oh. That's quite politically incorrect. I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;) Seriously, though, GPL is too copyLEFT for my taste. But the person who's doing the coding decides how it's licensed and there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.
 
 Charlie

-- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/
Nov 17 2004
parent Charlie <Charlie_member pathlink.com> writes:
I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;)

Hehe yes thats easier on the ears.
there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.

Thats true , and alot of them I use daily so I shouldn't bash it ( I don't know what I'd do w/o my emacs :S ). Charlie In article <cngmb3$2fuv$1 digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
Charlie wrote:
 Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.

Uh-oh. That's quite politically incorrect. I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;) Seriously, though, GPL is too copyLEFT for my taste. But the person who's doing the coding decides how it's licensed and there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.
 
 Charlie

-- Justin (a/k/a jcc7) http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

Nov 17 2004