[SFS] Question About Licensing
Davide Del Vento
davide.del.vento@gmail.com
Thu, 22 May 2014 13:42:25 -0600
--089e013cbf8a5ec5a304fa025253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
There is no such a license that does what you want, if I understand you
correctly.
The permissive licenses I mentioned before, do allow anybody to make a
closed source derivatives AND allow such a derivatives to have additional
restrictions, such as "it's illegal to copy".
The copyleft licenses don't allow to make closed source derivatives and
distribute them. One can still make closed source derivatives and keep them
"for themselves" (see below).
There is no license which allow closed source binaries provided that they
are freely distributable (unlike what Mike said, LGPL does not do that, but
something completely different).
One might write such a license, but don't even think about it yourself,
unless you have a lot of money and can hire a large team of very smart
lawyers.
But I believe you are barking at the wrong tree. Companies now live in the
cloud, they don't care about software to sell or copies. Everything now
runs in the browser, or on a server you access remotely. And take in mind
that the whole "cloud computing" is keeping the code for yourself. Let me
make an example: you can make a software, release it as GPLv2 or GPLv3,
Google could make a derivative (ignoring for a moment that it will
certainly more convenient and easy for them to start the project from
scratch than from yours), make that feature part of gmail, and NOT disclose
the code to anybody (let alone allowing anybody else to "copy" or use the
software, other than inside gmail) and be perfectly OK from a legal point
of view of the license.
David, GPL is the new BSD. If you really like copyleft, than you ought to
want Affero GPL (which explicitly forbids cloud computing without sharing
the source). I liked Affero GPL a lot. And "morally" still do. But
unfortunately, everybody (especially in the corporate world) avoids Affero
like the plague, so if one picks it, it's a death sentence for growing a
community around that software. And without a community, what is open
source good for? Because of this, I believe a more sensible choice these
days is simply a permissive license.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Andy Leitermann
<andyleitermann@gmail.com>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>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!
>>
>>
>>
>
--089e013cbf8a5ec5a304fa025253
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>There is no such a license that does w=
hat you want, if I understand you correctly.<br><br></div>The permissive li=
censes I mentioned before, do allow anybody to make a closed source derivat=
ives AND allow such a derivatives to have additional restrictions, such as =
"it's illegal to copy".<br>
<br></div>The copyleft licenses don't allow to make closed source deriv=
atives and distribute them. One can still make closed source derivatives an=
d keep them "for themselves" (see below). <br><br></div><div>
There is no license which allow closed source binaries provided that they a=
re freely distributable (unlike what Mike said, LGPL does not do that, but =
something completely different).<br></div><div><br></div>One might write su=
ch a license, but don't even think about it yourself, unless you have a=
lot of money and can hire a large team of very smart lawyers.<br>
<br></div>But I believe you are barking at the wrong tree. Companies now li=
ve in the cloud, they don't care about software to sell or copies. Ever=
ything now runs in the browser, or on a server you access remotely. And tak=
e in mind that the whole "cloud computing" is keeping the code fo=
r yourself. Let me make an example: you can make a software, release it as =
GPLv2 or GPLv3,=C2=A0 Google could make a derivative (ignoring for a moment=
that it will certainly more convenient and easy for them to start the proj=
ect from scratch than from yours), make that feature part of gmail, and NOT=
disclose the code to anybody (let alone allowing anybody else to "cop=
y" or use the software, other than inside gmail) and be perfectly OK f=
rom a legal point of view of the license. <br>
<br>David, GPL is the new BSD. If you really like copyleft, than you ought =
to want Affero GPL (which explicitly forbids cloud computing without sharin=
g the source). I liked Affero GPL a lot. And "morally" still do. =
But unfortunately, everybody (especially in the corporate world) avoids Aff=
ero like the plague, so if one picks it, it's a death sentence for grow=
ing a community around that software. And without a community, what is open=
source good for? Because of this, I believe a more sensible choice these d=
ays is simply a permissive license.<br>
<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
>On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Andy Leitermann <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a =
href=3D"mailto:andyleitermann@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">andyleitermann@g=
mail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">I guess the main point for =
what I want is that if for instance, I made BSD, MacOSX could be a closed s=
ource derivative provided that they don't attempt to restrict people fr=
om copying MacOSX binaries. I wouldn't have a problem with commercial u=
se or even selling of MacOSX, but I would want to make sure that it can'=
;t be illegal to copy.=C2=A0<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&=
#39;m reading.=C2=A0<div><div class=3D"h5"><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><blockquote style=3D"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-si=
ze: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></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--089e013cbf8a5ec5a304fa025253--