formalizing the felix license
Erick Tryzelaar
Someone on reddit asked about felix's license. I forgot that we
weren't formally BSD, but:
Felix is free for any use. Just don't misrepresent
the Authors. The C parser is derived from
FrontC/CIL which is has BSD licence.
free for any use isn't really a common term, though, so I'm thinking
about standardizing on a license that says the same thing. These
apparently grant essentially the same rights:
http://opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
mit/x11's probably the closest to that statement. apache 2.0 is nice
though in that it clarifies some patent issues. However, according to
the fsf, it's not gpl2 compatible, but is gpl3 compatible:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
So, it's probably not appropriate for us. So, my vote's mit/x11. What
do you think?
john skaller
On 10/11/2009, at 6:47 AM, Erick Tryzelaar wrote:
>
> So, it's probably not appropriate for us. So, my vote's mit/x11. What
> do you think?
Felix originally used BSD because
(a) it contained BSD code (such as Elkhound, Cil etc)
(b) the licence is dead simple
(c) it has the spirit of researchers making the results
of their work PUBLIC with a long tradition behind it
(namely .. Unix itself!)
These days I'd argue for Creative Commons, but really I don't
care because I'm an Anarchist and I don't believe in intellectual
property ownership in the first place :)
Despite a lot of rubbish law .. the facts are: if you put it on the net
and advertise it and don't attempt to hide it behind a password or
whatever YOUR ACTIONS ARE THOSE OF GIVING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS
and no claim of Copyright holds credence.
Anyhow the other licence I like is the one used by C++ BOOST.
Specifically crafted to ensure everyone could use the libraries
without encumberance.
--
john skaller
ska...@users.sourceforge.net
Adam Cimarosti
Erick Tryzelaar
<ska...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> Anyhow the other licence I like is the one used by C++ BOOST.
> Specifically crafted to ensure everyone could use the libraries
> without encumberance.
For completeness, here's the boost license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsl1.0.html
As far as I can tell, the MIT/X11, BSD, and Boost license are all
equivalent. Is there something specific in the Boost license that I'm
missing that isn't spelled out in the other two?
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Adam Cimarosti <cima...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> MIT/X11.
And for the sake of completeness, is there a reason why you prefer
this over the modified BSD?