License Agreement
Isaac4given
under?
Naturally, the GPL is the first that comes to mind, because it's the
most ubiquitous Free/Open license. However, liking things to be as
simple as possible, I would prefer a shorter license agreement.
Also, it would be good if the software developers could make money from
more than just advertisement, internal use, donations, distribution,
and support. We wouldn't want to be working to the benefit of competing
advertisors, distributers, supporters, etc., on the software. If the
software was under the LGPL, BSD, MIT, or Fair License, it seems like
developers could incorporate the program into other software which they
could keep others from redistributing. This escapes the old problem of
the GPL being maybe a little too open.
I initially jumped on the Fair License because it's so short, but
several people have expressed concerns related to the fact that it
doesn't include the terms "modification" or "distribution" along with
"usage".
Does anybody have any idea know how much trouble it would be to get our
own new license agreement approved by the OSI?
Let's also consider dual/multiple licensing, and using and distributing
different components together which are under different licenses.
Kurt
to think long and hard about it. I'd be willing to put in the research
and legalese hours required for this venture, as well as take the board
grilling on why this new license would be notable and distinct while
keeping with the spirit of OSS. I think that's the way we should
proceed. Any feedback is welcome. <br>
-- Kurt
Isaac4given
you have to spend too much time surfing those outside sites.
Basic Requirements for the Software License:
1. Copyrights Belong to Authors.
This isn't actually about what kind of license agreement we need, but I
thought it was important enough to mention. As for contributing to
software already owned by the FSF, personally, I find the concept of
needing to assign our copyrights to the FSF very disturbing. I don't
think that I'll be signing any of my rights over to them so that the
likes of RMS can "help" enforce our freedoms for us. So let's avoid
contributing to software copyrighted to the FSF itself:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html
2. The project needs to be "FLOSS".
Obviously, the project will be most efficient if it doesn't consist of
a limited collection of developers, constantly trying to reinvent the
wheel. We should be free to draw upon the wealth of free, pre-existing
software components. We can accomplish this through compatibility with
existing licenses. I'd like the license must be OSI certified, truly
Free Software, and GPL compatible:
http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html
3. Open Source.
The license agreement should be an "OSI Certified Open Source" License:
http://opensource.org/licenses/
4. Free Software.
The license should be a "GPL-Compatible, Free Software License":
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
Besides these basic requirements, I have a couple of other ideas in
mind, which are subject to debate:
1. Brevity.
I would like the license to be as short as possible. It seems like it
would be great if it could be very quick and easy to apply to the
software, not take too long to read, and simple enough for ordinary
people to understand.
2. Not too Open.
I'm concerned about the "viral" nature of the GPL:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33968.html
Maybe a "weak" copyleft like the LGPL would suffice, or maybe what the
FSF calls a "simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license"-
like the modified bsd, mit, w3c, x11, expat, and cryptix.
Even the FSF recommends such "permissive" licenses for broadening the
scope of the usage of certain libraries, and for extremely short works.
Thank you all very much.
Isaac4given
1. As short as possible.
2. Clearly liberates the information for free and open usage,
modification, and distribution, almost like public domain. Facilitates
collaborative software development.
3. Aims to match the Free Software Definition.
4. Aims to match the Open Source Definition.
5. Compatible with the GPL, New BSD, and MIT licenses.
6. Compatible with multiple licensing.
7. No strong viral copyleft restrictions.
8. Software under this license can be used with other Closed Source,
Open Source, Free Software, and Public Domain Software.
9. Lets developers earn money for their work.
10. Promotes the original authors' names.
11. Applicable to all types of copyrighted materials, not just
software.
12. Disclaims warranty provisions.
13. Prevents everyone except the original authors from making closed
source copies or modifications.
Isaac4given
How about:
Copyright (c) <year> <author>
A. The word "Copyright" is included just in case the c in parenthesis
is found to be invalid- the U.S. law required a "C" with an actual
circle around it, the word Copyright, or the abbreviation "Copr."
B. The abbreviation "Copr." is not used because it is not commonly
recognized or understood by ordinary people, and because it might make
the notice even more confusing internationally.
C. The C in parenthesis is included because it may be more valid
internationally, under the UCC, than the word "Copyright".
D. The "C" in parenthesis is lower case instead of captialized, to save
a keystroke when typing the license, and because many notices currently
considered valid also have the lower case letter instead of the
capital.
E. There are no commas between the (C), year, or author, because such
commas aren't necessary.
F. The word "author" was chosen to emphasize the fact that this license
is intended to reward the original author(s) of the works.
G. An "All rights reserved" notice is not considered necessary, and may
even be a bit inaccurate, considering the rights granted by the
license.
U.S. Government info.:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf
Other licenses use:
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER> All rights reserved.
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Copyright (c) <Year> <Owner Organization Name> All rights reserved.
Isaac4given
How about if we use a legal disclaimer like this one from the Fair
License:
DISCLAIMER: THE WORKS ARE WITHOUT WARRANTY.
A. I left the disclaimer capitalized for added emphasis, and sometimes
it might be legally necessary for such a disclaimer to be in capital
letters?
B. I left the word "DISCLAIMER:" for added emphasis and clarity. I
wanted to be sure everybody knew that it was, indeed, the disclaimer.
C. I had a hard time deciding not to include additional text in the
disclaimer, such as "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR
CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORKS.".
That should be obvious
from the statement that the works are without warranty, but does
anybody think additional disclaimer text should be included?
You might want to look up the disclaimers that other licenses use.