[SFS] Question About Licensing
Mike Nolte
obiwanmikenolte@gmail.com
Thu, 22 May 2014 13:25:31 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050102090900020600060205
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Seems like you're looking for LGPL.
On 5/22/2014 1:15 PM, Andy Leitermann wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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!
>
>
>
--------------050102090900020600060205
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Seems like you're looking for LGPL.<br>
<br>
On 5/22/2014 1:15 PM, Andy Leitermann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJug1rboZm1pynebwbh_Lvv8MVTLHod+DTtEqkEjprfQZD2Yxg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">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.
<div>
<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'm reading. <br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:39 PM,
David L. Willson <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:DLWillson@thegeek.nu" target="_blank">DLWillson@thegeek.nu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="font-family:Times New
Roman;font-size:12pt;color:#000000"><span>My
opinion: I prefer the copyleft restriction on
derivative works. I do not want to see our work
turned into non-free derivatives. So, </span>t<span>he
usual licenses for works developed by or for SFS
are GPL and/or CC BY SA (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.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 restrictions.<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 work, add "SA"
(share-alike)</span><br>
<span></span></blockquote>
<span></span><span>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).<br>
<br>
Here for more on GNU licenses: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html"
target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html</a><br>
Here for more on CC licenses: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/"
target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/</a><br>
<br>
<span name="x"></span>--<br>
David L. Willson<br>
Teacher, Engineer, Evangelist<br>
RHCE+Satellite CCAH Network+ A+ Linux+ LPIC-1
UbuntuCP NovellCLA<br>
Mobile 720-333-LANS(5267)<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://sofree.us"
target="_blank">http://sofree.us</a><br>
<br>
This is a good time for a r3VOLution.<span
name="x"></span><br>
</span><br>
<hr>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr">As I've been starting a github
profile I came across a dilemma regarding
which license to use.
<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 strongly
encourage it!). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here's one of the main tools I used for
searching: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://choosealicense.com/licenses/"
target="_blank">http://choosealicense.com/licenses/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------050102090900020600060205--