Jump to content

Project: Open Source License

- - - - -
Started by Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_* , Sep 11 2006 07:55 AM

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1
Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 07:55 AM

Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
  • Guests
Title: Not yet decided (vote in the poll)
Description: A open source software license which will hopefully become OSI approved.
Language: English
Additional Info: The first draft of the license is as follows.

Quote

Redistribution of this app, in both binary and source form, is permitted as long as the following conditions are met.
  • You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
  • If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
  • This product comes with absolutely no warranty unless otherwise expressly stated by the company which owns the original, or modifed version of the product.
The following rights are automatically granted.
  • You may download and redistribute the original product in both binary and source form, as long as credit is given to the original developers.
  • You may modify and redistribute a modified version as long as it licensed under this, or any other OSI approved license and credit is given to the original developers.
    • You must give any modified files prominent notices stating that you changed the file, the date you changed it.
You may not do any of the following without specific prior written permission.
  • Use of the name of the company, or coders of the original product to endorse a derivitive product.
  • Sell the original product, or any derivitives of the original product.


I have added this as a Writely document. If you have a Writely account, post or PM me the email address you used to sign up, and I will add you as a collaberator.

Tested System: N/A
Requirements (if any are known): The ability to read.
Source/Binary Attachment: N/A
License: Uh, this is a license. :)
Operating Systems: Any that have a text viewer
Features: N/A
Todo List: Review, revise, and submit for OSI approval.

#2
brackett
Posted 11 September 2006 - 09:38 AM

brackett

    Programmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts
A quick read shows these basic differences from GPL:
1. Allows binary only distribution, with no rights to source.
2. Allows change of license for derivative works, but must be OSI approved.
3. Requires "credit" to be given to original work.
4. Does not allow sale of original, or any derivative works.

Does that about sum it up?

#3
Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 10:10 AM

Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
  • Guests
1. I want the programs to be released with the source code. I didn't realise that the license didn't require that. :) I suppose I'll need to specifically say that.

2. I don't really like this in the license, but I feel that if I don't put this in, derivitive works will be licensed under a proprietary license, and I like that even less.

3. Yup, I feel that the original coder(s) should be given credit for their work. :)

4. Also true. I don't want anyone selling my code unless I give permission. :)

#4
RobSoftware
Posted 11 September 2006 - 10:35 AM

RobSoftware

    Programmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
I like PPL as the name - Protected Public License.

One question though, if a user downloads source under this license and then changes the license wouldn't that invalidate all of the limits here? I.E. remove copyright information.

#5
Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 10:45 AM

Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
  • Guests
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, yes it would. I suppose to fix this, I need to revise the license to say that any derivative works must be licensed under this license, which is what I was trying to avoid. :(

I would most likely have to add this to the things you can do with written permission, as this would give a bit more freedom. However, if anyone knows differently, please speak up, I'd like to not have to implement such a strict copyleft. :)

#6
Guest_Jordan_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 01:04 PM

Guest_Jordan_*
  • Guests
PPL here as well.

Hmm, that is exactly what was trying to be avoided here. I think that we could add a clause stating the license could change for additional code but the orignial code always remains under this license. Their code could be licensed under a different model and sold/changed/etc..

#7
Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
Posted 11 September 2006 - 06:20 PM

Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
  • Guests

Jordan said:

PPL here as well.

Hmm, that is exactly what was trying to be avoided here. I think that we could add a clause stating the license could change for additional code but the orignial code always remains under this license. Their code could be licensed under a different model and sold/changed/etc..

Brilliant! This would allow the people who coded the derivitive programs to sell their code as an add-on, which I at least don't mind, but no one could sell the original app, or any derivitive. How about adding another clause stating

Quote

You may license your own modifications under a proprietary license, and sell these modifications, and directions on how to modify the code, but you may not sell any product which contains code written by the original author of the product.

#8
brackett
Posted 12 September 2006 - 04:33 PM

brackett

    Programmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 192 posts
Surely one of the 50 or so already OSI approved licenses would fit the bill. What you're describing sounds an awful lot like the LGPL, which has the advantages of being familiar and already OSI approved. New open source licenses often must go through a vetting process by corporate lawyers before they get too much internal traction, so using a new license could slow adoption.

#9
RobSoftware
Posted 13 September 2006 - 06:38 AM

RobSoftware

    Programmer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts
Yes, the LGPL does look very similar. Are you guys re-inventing the wheel here?

#10
WingedPanther
Posted 13 September 2006 - 07:54 PM

WingedPanther

    A spammer's worst nightmare

  • Moderators
  • 16,831 posts
I think it would be easier to just use GPL or LGPL and be done with it.
Programming is a branch of mathematics.
My CodeCall Blog | My Personal Blog

#11
Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
Posted 14 September 2006 - 05:05 AM

Guest_CheeseBurgerMan_*
  • Guests
Agreed, I honestly did not realize that the LGPL was similar to the license which I was creating. I'd much rather use a well known pre-written license then try to make a whole new one. That's why I created the other thread before trying to make one. :)

#12
Lop
Posted 14 September 2006 - 07:43 AM

Lop

    Speaks fluent binary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,172 posts
So this community project is now dead?
We need more projects as I'd like to participate.........
Back to Community Projects




  1. CODECALL Programming Forum
  2. → General Discussion
  3. → Community Projects
IPB skins by Skinbox