[SFS] Question About Licensing
Andy Leitermann
andyleitermann@gmail.com
Thu, 22 May 2014 13:15:47 -0600
--001a11c1641ec0462e04fa01f0a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I guess the main point for what I want is that if for instance, I made BSD,
MacOSX could be a closed source derivative provided that they don't attempt
to restrict people from copying MacOSX binaries. I wouldn't have a problem
with commercial use or even selling of MacOSX, but I would want to make
sure that it can't be illegal to copy.
Does the GPL2 allow for that? I'm not really getting the sense that I
understand one way or another on that matter based on what I'm reading.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM, David L. Willson <DLWillson@thegeek.nu>wrote:
> My opinion: I prefer the copyleft restriction on derivative works. I do
> not want to see our work turned into non-free derivatives. So, the usual
> licenses for works developed by or for SFS are GPL and/or CC BY SA (
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
>
> To your question: Are you licensing code or art?
>
> If you're licensing code, and you don't care if your licensees share alike
> (ie: you don't want copyleft), you probably want an apache or bsd license.
>
> If you're licensing art, you probably want to use a Creative Commons
> license. Then, you want to choose your license restrictions.
>
> If the licensee must give you credit as the author, add "BY" (attribution)
> If the licensee must not use the art commercially, add "NC"
> (non-commercial)
> If the licensee must not pack the art into proprietary derivative work,
> add "SA" (share-alike)
>
> If you don't care if your licensees share alike (ie: you don't want
> copyleft), and you don't care whether they give you credit (attribution),
> you probably just want CC (Creative Commons).
>
> Here for more on GNU licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
> Here for more on CC licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>
> --
> David L. Willson
> Teacher, Engineer, Evangelist
> RHCE+Satellite CCAH Network+ A+ Linux+ LPIC-1 UbuntuCP NovellCLA
> Mobile 720-333-LANS(5267)
> http://sofree.us
>
> This is a good time for a r3VOLution.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> As I've been starting a github profile I came across a dilemma regarding
> which license to use.
>
> I have a bit of a unique view on IP - I like the GPL, but I don't believe
> people should be forced to share the source of derivative works (although I
> strongly encourage it!).
>
> The closest license I could find was Creative Commons Share-Alike
> Attribution (although the attribution wouldn't be strictly necessary as far
> as I'm concerned). But the license was written with creative works in mind
> rather than software code, so I'm a bit worried there might be unintended
> consequences using that license.
>
> So does anyone happen to know of any way that using that license would be
> 'broken' for licensing code rather than, say videos, music, or images?
>
> Also, does anyone know of another license I might be able to use that
> would fulfill those requirements? I've looked everywhere I could but found
> nothing other than the CC-SA-A.
>
> Here's one of the main tools I used for searching:
> http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
--001a11c1641ec0462e04fa01f0a2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I guess the main point for what I want is that if for inst=
ance, I made BSD, MacOSX could be a closed source derivative provided that =
they don't attempt to restrict people from copying MacOSX binaries. I w=
ouldn't have a problem with commercial use or even selling of MacOSX, b=
ut I would want to make sure that it can't be illegal to copy.=C2=A0<di=
v>
<br></div><div>Does the GPL2 allow for that? I'm not really getting the=
sense that I understand one way or another on that matter based on what I&=
#39;m reading.=C2=A0<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"=
gmail_extra">
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM, David L. Wills=
on <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:DLWillson@thegeek.nu" target=3D"=
_blank">DLWillson@thegeek.nu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex">
<div><div style=3D"font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:12pt;color:#000000=
"><span>My opinion: I prefer the=20
copyleft restriction on derivative works. I do not want to see our work=20
turned into non-free derivatives. So, </span>t<span>he usual licenses for=
=20
works developed by or for SFS are GPL and/or CC BY SA (<a href=3D"http://cr=
eativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target=3D"_blank">http://creativecom=
mons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/</a>).<br><br></span>To your question: Are you =
licensing code or art?<br>
<br>If you're licensing code, and you don't care if your licensees =
share alike (ie: you don't want copyleft), you probably want an apache =
or <span>bsd license.<br><br>If you're licensing art, you probably want=
to use a Creative Commons license. Then, you want to choose your license r=
estrictions.<br>
</span><blockquote><span>If the licensee must give you credit as the author=
, add "BY" (attribution)</span><br><span>If the licensee must not=
use the art commercially, add "NC" (non-commercial)</span><br>
<span>If the licensee must not pack the art into proprietary derivative wor=
k, add "SA" (share-alike)</span><br><span></span></blockquote><sp=
an></span><span>If you don't care if your licensees share alike (ie: yo=
u don't want copyleft), and you don't care whether they give you cr=
edit (attribution), you probably just want CC (Creative Commons).<br>
<br>Here for more on GNU licenses: <a href=3D"https://www.gnu.org/licenses/=
licenses.html" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html=
</a><br>Here for more on CC licenses: <a href=3D"http://creativecommons.org=
/licenses/" target=3D"_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/</a><br>
<br><span name=3D"x"></span>--<br>David L. Willson<br>Teacher, Engineer, Ev=
angelist<br>RHCE+Satellite CCAH Network+ A+ Linux+ LPIC-1 UbuntuCP NovellCL=
A<br>Mobile 720-333-LANS(5267)<br><a href=3D"http://sofree.us" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://sofree.us</a><br>
<br>This is a good time for a r3VOLution.<span name=3D"x"></span><br></span=
><br><hr><div><div class=3D"h5"><blockquote style=3D"border-left:2px solid =
rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:norm=
al;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-=
serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir=3D"ltr">As I've been starting a github profile I came across a=
dilemma regarding which license to use.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>I have a =
bit of a unique view on IP - I like the GPL, but I don't believe people=
should be forced to share the source of derivative works (although I stron=
gly encourage it!).=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>The closest license I could find was Creative Commons S=
hare-Alike Attribution (although the attribution wouldn't be strictly n=
ecessary as far as I'm concerned). But the license was written with cre=
ative works in mind rather than software code, so I'm a bit worried the=
re might be unintended consequences using that license.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>So does anyone happen to know of any way that using tha=
t license would be 'broken' for licensing code rather than, say vid=
eos, music, or images?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Also, does anyone kno=
w of another license I might be able to use that would fulfill those requir=
ements? I've looked everywhere I could but found nothing other than the=
CC-SA-A.=C2=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here's one of the main tools I used for searching:=
=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://choosealicense.com/licenses/" target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://choosealicense.com/licenses/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div>=
</div>
</blockquote><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div=
></div>
--001a11c1641ec0462e04fa01f0a2--