Most pragmatic licensing approach to LLUP open source code?

[Russell Miles]

Hi everyone,

I'm just badging up the first release of code for the rblip project (open source implementation of LLUP for Ruby) and was wondering what license does the community think should be used for this project. I'm not an OS license whizz, so any input will be greatly appreciated.

/Russ

[Sylvain Hellegouarch]

I most of the time go for the BSD license. It's flexible and open.
http://www.opensource.org/osi3.0/licenses/bsd-license.php

- Sylvain

[Don Demsak]

Russ,

 

I usually use the BSD license, too.

 

Don Demsak

Microsoft MVP (XML)

.NET Solutions Consultant

blog: www.donxml.com

[Russell Miles]

Excellent, that's two for BSD and so in the short-term I've checked in a short BSD license into the source tree in the appropriate areas. We can always amend as we see fit later on.

I've also had a go at announcing things a bit on my blog, www.russmiles.com, and the SOA Ranch, www.soaranch.com, to see if I can drum up any interest in the work we'll be doing over the next couple of weeks (plus it ties into a couple of articles I'll be publishing on the SOA site).

My aim at the moment is to have a full implementation of LLUP (across a number of transports, that's the easy part :) and a capable if not feature-complete BlogXast service available for download and up and running in the next couple of weeks.

Will keep you all posted.

/Russ

[M. David Peterson]

+1

On 4/20/07, Don Demsak <d...@donxml.com> wrote:

--
/M:D

M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155

[Russell Miles]

Sounds fairly unanimous :) BSD it is.

Thanks everyone for your input!

/Russ

On 4/21/07, Michael Sparks < m...@cerenity.org> wrote:

Every major protocol that's taken off has had a bsd style license or less
restrictive for at least 1 of it's earliest primary implementations. SMTP had
sendmail (BSD like), NNTP had inn (BSD like), DNS had BIND (BSD like), HTTP
had the original cern originated httpd which was made public domain.

As a result, based on a history of success rather than anything else I'm a
strong advocate of the BSD license for anything protocol related :-)


Michael.

[Uche Ogbuji]

BSD is a fine choice, but I did want to be sure folks know of AFL 3.0,
which is my usual pick of licenses these days:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-3.0.php

I like its legal clarity (it was written by Lawrence Rosen himself), but
the practical terms pretty much correspond with BSD.

--
Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net
Linked-in profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/

[Sylvain Hellegouarch]

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> Russell Miles wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm just badging up the first release of code for the rblip project
>> (open source implementation of LLUP for Ruby) and was wondering what
>> license does the community think should be used for this project. I'm
>> not an OS license whizz, so any input will be greatly appreciated.
>
> BSD is a fine choice, but I did want to be sure folks know of AFL 3.0,
> which is my usual pick of licenses these days:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-3.0.php
>
> I like its legal clarity (it was written by Lawrence Rosen himself), but
> the practical terms pretty much correspond with BSD.
>

Definitely clear on its legal terms indeed. I will keep it in mind.

- Sylvain

[M. David Peterson]

Had never seen this before now. I definitely like the clarity as well
as the name itself, as it implies a sense of using the source as both
a point of collaborative study as well as a learning tool in general.
Seems to me that the primary purpose of any reference platform should
place primary focus on both readability/clarity of the code base,
correctness as it relates to the specification, etc. such that it can
easily be used as a reference point for both understanding and
extension, both of which fall smack dab in the center of the spirit of
academia.

Given the fact that this is really a BSD license that simply provides
greater detail and clarity, I'm inclined to suggest this as at very
least something we should consider as our primary focus.

Thoughts?

[Russell Miles]

Sounds good to me, +1 for the A.F.L. Since it is basically a clear BSD license then if no-one has any qualms over the next couple of days then I'll switch the license over.

/Russ

[M. David Peterson]

+1 (though that's pretty obvious :D)