digitalmars.D - [OT] Making my library licences GPL-compatible
- Stewart Gordon (40/40) Jul 07 2005 At the moment I have this licence text in SDWF and my utility library:
- Manfred Nowak (10/12) Jul 07 2005 [...]
- clayasaurus (4/46) Jul 07 2005 Yours looks similar to the zlib liscense, which is GPL compatable.
-
Stewart Gordon
(15/18)
Jul 07 2005
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (10/21) Jul 07 2005 I second that, the zlib license is a good one...
-
Stewart Gordon
(16/23)
Jul 18 2005
- =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= (16/23) Jul 18 2005 Right. Although LGPL does have such a rule for any library enhancements,
- Marco (4/5) Jul 17 2005 bad: GPL will essentially make a library unusable in a commercial app
- Hasan Aljudy (3/45) Jul 17 2005 Like Manfrek said, be aware of lame legal consequences ..
At the moment I have this licence text in SDWF and my utility library: ---------- Feel free to use, redistribute and/or modify this code as you see fit. Just a few rules if you're going to redistribute it: 1. Keep this notice in the source code files. 2. If you change anything, make a note of this fact in comment form. 3. Don't try to make any money out of it. (You may, however, freely use this product in a commercial software product of your own creation, to the extent allowed by your D compiler's licence terms.) ---------- I decided to write something simple rather than attach GPL or LGPL to it, partly with an "I don't like reading long, complicated licence agreements, and I know you don't either" kind of attitude. Moreover, I wasn't sure of the details of either, and even now the only thing I'm sure of is that the viral nature of GPL isn't for my libs. However, I can see that it might make sense to make the licence GPL-compatible. Is there anything that needs to be changed in the above text for this to be so? I guess the only issue, if there is one, is point 3. GPL allows people to sell copies. But what does GPL-compatible really mean? Is it sufficient that it is possible to license applications created with my library as GPL? Of course, any application created with my library isn't the library, but a derivative work. OTOH GPL software isn't exactly commercial software. On this basis, I'm inclined that this isn't directly contradictory to GPL compatibility, but open to interpretation. So I guess the question is if I should rephrase point 3 to make it clearer on this count. To the effect that applications that use my library (and maybe some other kinds of derivative works) may carry any licence including one that grants the right to sell. Then, the next question becomes how I should write it.... Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jul 07 2005
Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote: [...]I decided to write something simple rather than attach GPL or LGPL to it[...] Congrats, you managed to make it simple, but are you sure that you want to stand the consequences of this simplicity? One simple example: you do not exclude neglegent errors in your code from your liability but allow commercial usage. This means in consequence that you can be put into jail in germany because of a typo in your code. -manfred
Jul 07 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:At the moment I have this licence text in SDWF and my utility library: ---------- Feel free to use, redistribute and/or modify this code as you see fit. Just a few rules if you're going to redistribute it: 1. Keep this notice in the source code files. 2. If you change anything, make a note of this fact in comment form. 3. Don't try to make any money out of it. (You may, however, freely use this product in a commercial software product of your own creation, to the extent allowed by your D compiler's licence terms.) ----------Yours looks similar to the zlib liscense, which is GPL compatable. http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicensesI decided to write something simple rather than attach GPL or LGPL to it, partly with an "I don't like reading long, complicated licence agreements, and I know you don't either" kind of attitude. Moreover, I wasn't sure of the details of either, and even now the only thing I'm sure of is that the viral nature of GPL isn't for my libs. However, I can see that it might make sense to make the licence GPL-compatible. Is there anything that needs to be changed in the above text for this to be so? I guess the only issue, if there is one, is point 3. GPL allows people to sell copies. But what does GPL-compatible really mean? Is it sufficient that it is possible to license applications created with my library as GPL? Of course, any application created with my library isn't the library, but a derivative work. OTOH GPL software isn't exactly commercial software. On this basis, I'm inclined that this isn't directly contradictory to GPL compatibility, but open to interpretation. So I guess the question is if I should rephrase point 3 to make it clearer on this count. To the effect that applications that use my library (and maybe some other kinds of derivative works) may carry any licence including one that grants the right to sell. Then, the next question becomes how I should write it.... Stewart.
Jul 07 2005
clayasaurus wrote: <snip>Yours looks similar to the zlib liscense, which is GPL compatable. http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses<snip> Yes, that looks like the licence that's been applied to some Phobos modules. But what really is the licence of this licence? And there's a small ambiguity: by "freely" is it talking of price or freedom? Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jul 07 2005
clayasaurus wrote:I second that, the zlib license is a good one... http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php zlib uses it. libpng uses it. and Phobos uses it. And I've used it myself too, if that counts :-) There are times when the GPL / FDL makes sense too, so another option is the LGPL - like e.g. SDL uses ? It does have the "viral" / "Free" aspect, though. (for better and for worse, as discussed elsewhere) --andersJust a few rules if you're going to redistribute it: 1. Keep this notice in the source code files. 2. If you change anything, make a note of this fact in comment form. 3. Don't try to make any money out of it. (You may, however, freely use this product in a commercial software product of your own creation, to the extent allowed by your D compiler's licence terms.)Yours looks similar to the zlib liscense, which is GPL compatable. http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Jul 07 2005
Anders F Björklund wrote: <snip>I second that, the zlib license is a good one... http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php<snip>There are times when the GPL / FDL makes sense too, so another option is the LGPL - like e.g. SDL uses ? It does have the "viral" / "Free" aspect, though. (for better and for worse, as discussed elsewhere)What do you mean? The viral nature of GPL is that all applications that use the library must themselves be GPL. It would seem that the FSF was trying to convert all software projects to the GPL way of life. Neither zlib nor LPGL has such a rule. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jul 18 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:Right. Although LGPL does have such a rule for any library enhancements, and also has a rule about "being replacable" which usually means that it needs to be dynamically linked into the application (and not statically, unless you provide object code or some other means to relink your app ?) What I *meant* to say was that the GPL/FDL is viral and LGPL might be an alternative if you want "copyleft" - and that I use a zlib license on my own code, but GPL/LGPL in some projects where they were started as such. Somehow it came out wrong, or with the wrong reference / wrong context ? Both types of open source licenses are useful, IMHO. (Copyleft vs. BSD) Take for instance D's : GDC -> GNU GPL license, Phobos -> zlib license. Deciding on a license is an important issue for any software project, but I don't really want to discuss it on the D language newsgroup... --anders PS. You're right about FSF not really liking the LGPL "compromise": http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.htmlIt does have the "viral" / "Free" aspect, though. (for better and for worse, as discussed elsewhere)What do you mean? The viral nature of GPL is that all applications that use the library must themselves be GPL. It would seem that the FSF was trying to convert all software projects to the GPL way of life. Neither zlib nor LPGL has such a rule.
Jul 18 2005
In article <daj9tn$1721$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...At the moment I have this licence text in SDWF and my utility library:bad: GPL will essentially make a library unusable in a commercial app better: LPGL is a reasonable compromise best: find a simpler license (such as suggested by OPs)
Jul 17 2005
Stewart Gordon wrote:At the moment I have this licence text in SDWF and my utility library: ---------- Feel free to use, redistribute and/or modify this code as you see fit. Just a few rules if you're going to redistribute it: 1. Keep this notice in the source code files. 2. If you change anything, make a note of this fact in comment form. 3. Don't try to make any money out of it. (You may, however, freely use this product in a commercial software product of your own creation, to the extent allowed by your D compiler's licence terms.) ---------- I decided to write something simple rather than attach GPL or LGPL to it, partly with an "I don't like reading long, complicated licence agreements, and I know you don't either" kind of attitude. Moreover, I wasn't sure of the details of either, and even now the only thing I'm sure of is that the viral nature of GPL isn't for my libs. However, I can see that it might make sense to make the licence GPL-compatible. Is there anything that needs to be changed in the above text for this to be so? I guess the only issue, if there is one, is point 3. GPL allows people to sell copies. But what does GPL-compatible really mean? Is it sufficient that it is possible to license applications created with my library as GPL? Of course, any application created with my library isn't the library, but a derivative work. OTOH GPL software isn't exactly commercial software. On this basis, I'm inclined that this isn't directly contradictory to GPL compatibility, but open to interpretation. So I guess the question is if I should rephrase point 3 to make it clearer on this count. To the effect that applications that use my library (and maybe some other kinds of derivative works) may carry any licence including one that grants the right to sell. Then, the next question becomes how I should write it.... Stewart.Like Manfrek said, be aware of lame legal consequences .. You might wanna add a disclaimer to it.
Jul 17 2005