www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Phobos-compatible license on Google Code?

reply Justin Spahr-Summers <Justin.SpahrSummers gmail.com> writes:
Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new 
projects:

Apache License 2.0
Artistic License/GPL
Eclipse Public License 1.0
GPL v2
GPL v3
LGPL
MIT License
Mozilla Public License 1.1
New BSD License

Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for 
completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost 
license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but 
certainly a lot uglier.
Jul 30 2010
next sibling parent reply retard <re tard.com.invalid> writes:
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:

 Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new
 projects:
 
 Apache License 2.0
 Artistic License/GPL
 Eclipse Public License 1.0
 GPL v2
 GPL v3
 LGPL
 MIT License
 Mozilla Public License 1.1
 New BSD License
 
 Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for
 completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost
 license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but
 certainly a lot uglier.

They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.
Jul 30 2010
parent reply Justin Spahr-Summers <Justin.SpahrSummers gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:47:30 +0000 (UTC), retard <re tard.com.invalid> 
wrote:
 
 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 
 Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new
 projects:
 
 Apache License 2.0
 Artistic License/GPL
 Eclipse Public License 1.0
 GPL v2
 GPL v3
 LGPL
 MIT License
 Mozilla Public License 1.1
 New BSD License
 
 Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for
 completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost
 license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but
 certainly a lot uglier.

They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.

Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.
Jul 30 2010
next sibling parent Jeff Nowakowski <jeff dilacero.org> writes:
On 07/31/2010 02:46 AM, Robert Jacques wrote:
 Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without
 dual-licensing. However, since Boost is compatible with all of these,
 you could make the project MIT, for example, and then have each file
 licensed under Boost.

That's a potential way of getting yourself banned from Google Code. I would just avoid Google Code all together if you really want to use the Boost license. They have a very strict stance against license proliferation.
Jul 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply div0 <div0 sourceforge.net> writes:
On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host
 on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional
 (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of
 eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.

Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.
Jul 31 2010
parent reply Justin Spahr-Summers <Justin.SpahrSummers gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:06:26 +0100, div0 <div0 sourceforge.net> wrote:
 
 On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host
 on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional
 (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of
 eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.

Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.

It's certainly tempting, but the fact that they don't offer Mercurial without payment is a bit off-putting to me.
Aug 01 2010
parent div0 <div0 sourceforge.net> writes:
On 02/08/2010 05:14, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:06:26 +0100, div0<div0 sourceforge.net>  wrote:
 On 31/07/2010 03:50, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host
 on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional
 (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of
 eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.

Try: http://www.xp-dev.com/ They do every CVS system under the sun and don't bitch about licenses for open source projects. I was happy enough with the service to actually pay for it.

It's certainly tempting, but the fact that they don't offer Mercurial without payment is a bit off-putting to me.

If you can be bothered, keep an eye on it. The guys's on about sorting out non https access for git/mercurial at some point. Subversion is perfectly good for small teams and you can upgrade later.
Aug 02 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:
 Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new 
 projects:
 
 Apache License 2.0
 Artistic License/GPL
 Eclipse Public License 1.0
 GPL v2
 GPL v3
 LGPL
 MIT License
 Mozilla Public License 1.1
 New BSD License
 
 Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for 
 completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost 
 license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but 
 certainly a lot uglier.

Since Google is a heavy C++ user, I'm surprised Boost isn't on the list.
Jul 30 2010
prev sibling parent "Robert Jacques" <sandford jhu.edu> writes:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:50:18 -0400, Justin Spahr-Summers  
<Justin.SpahrSummers gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:47:30 +0000 (UTC), retard <re tard.com.invalid>
 wrote:
 Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:41:44 -0500, Justin Spahr-Summers wrote:

 Google Code allows selection from the following licenses for new
 projects:

 Apache License 2.0
 Artistic License/GPL
 Eclipse Public License 1.0
 GPL v2
 GPL v3
 LGPL
 MIT License
 Mozilla Public License 1.1
 New BSD License

 Obviously, the GNU licenses are out of the question (listed only for
 completeness). But of the rest, are any compatible with the Boost
 license used for Phobos? Dual-licensing is always an option too, but
 certainly a lot uglier.

They're all compatible with Phobos. The point was to make Phobos as compatible as possible with various kinds of other licenses. What you probably wanted to know is whether code contributions to Phobos can be licensed under these licenses. They probably want to use the same license (Boost in this case), if possible.

Yes, thank you. I misworded my original question. I was hoping to host on Google Code, because it's been the most reliable and functional (free) project hosting I've found, and I'd love to entertain hopes of eventually submitting the code as a Phobos module.

Sorry, none of them are compatible with submitting to Phobos without dual-licensing. However, since Boost is compatible with all of these, you could make the project MIT, for example, and then have each file licensed under Boost.
Jul 30 2010