A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? ? Jenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/96b87580/attachment.html>
Hey there, BSD uses full copyright, it''s like saying all rights reserved. Public domain means no rights reserved, it''s not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn''t a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with (L)GPL2 (L)GPL3 Apache MIT BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com> wrote:> A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a > software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What > licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? > > > ? > Jenna > > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/cddee889/attachment.html>
This is very helpful! I don''t really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. I''m not a big believer in copyright. ? Jenna On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote:> Hey there, > > BSD uses full copyright, it''s like saying all rights reserved. > Public domain means no rights reserved, it''s not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn''t a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. > > If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with > (L)GPL2 > (L)GPL3 > Apache > MIT > BSD > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences > > If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. > > Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com (mailto:a at creativepony.com)> wrote: > > A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? > > > > > > ? > > Jenna > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Camping-list mailing list > > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/5235051e/attachment-0001.html>
You could read Stallman''s CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE> This is very helpful! I don''t really mind though. Maybe public > domain is best. I''m not a big believer in copyright. > > ? > Jenna > > On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote: > >> Hey there, >> >> BSD uses full copyright, it''s like saying all rights reserved. >> Public domain means no rights reserved, it''s not a FOSS thing - >> FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and >> accepted open-source license. Public domain isn''t a license per se. >> Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open >> if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent >> binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as >> more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom >> (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel >> that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. >> >> If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with >> (L)GPL2 >> (L)GPL3 >> Apache >> MIT >> BSD >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences >> >> If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not >> have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of >> software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. >> >> Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. >> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com> wrote: >>> A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly >>> put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS >>> yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? >>> >>> >>> ? >>> Jenna >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Camping-list mailing list >>> Camping-list at rubyforge.org >>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Camping-list mailing list >> Camping-list at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/f0ffc2ea/attachment.html>
Why would I care if they did that? ? Jenna On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dave Everitt wrote:> You could read Stallman''s CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE > > > This is very helpful! I don''t really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. I''m not a big believer in copyright. > > > > ? > > Jenna > > > > > > On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote: > > > > > Hey there, > > > > > > BSD uses full copyright, it''s like saying all rights reserved. > > > Public domain means no rights reserved, it''s not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn''t a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. > > > > > > If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with > > > (L)GPL2 > > > (L)GPL3 > > > Apache > > > MIT > > > BSD > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences > > > > > > If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. > > > > > > Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. > > > > > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com (mailto:a at creativepony.com)> wrote: > > > > A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > Jenna > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Camping-list mailing list > > > > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Camping-list mailing list > > > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Camping-list mailing list > > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list at rubyforge.org) > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/a370b073/attachment-0001.html>
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com> wrote:> This is very helpful!?I don''t really mind though. Maybe public domain is > best. I''m not a big believer in copyright.Public domain is "people can do whatever they want with it". BSD is "people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain copyright and they must credit me". (so the copyright part isn''t that important there). GPL is "people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep it in GPL and credit me".
LOL if you don''t, that''s okay! Just in case you did... - DE> Why would I care if they did that? > > ? > Jenna > > On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dave Everitt wrote: > >> You could read Stallman''s CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/ >> copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code >> into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/36444555/attachment.html>
thanks Magnus, Anthony - that''s all going in my quickref ''solutions log''... DE> Public domain is "people can do whatever they want with it". > > BSD is "people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain > copyright and they must credit me". (so the copyright part isn''t that > important there). > > GPL is "people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep > it in GPL and credit me".> BSD uses full copyright, it''s like saying all rights reserved. > Public domain means no rights reserved, it''s not a FOSS thing - FOSS > means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted > open-source license. Public domain isn''t a license per se. Licenses > like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an > entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent > binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as > more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom > (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel > that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. > > If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with > (L)GPL2 > (L)GPL3 > Apache > MIT > BSD > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences > > If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have > it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of > software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many.
Zlib! Cheers! Isak Andersson Jenna Fox <a at creativepony.com> skrev: A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? ? Jenna Get the best selection of equity home loans sites here. Click Here to check them out! http://click.lavabit.com/rrjir48a1nszui17hy4oa5sie7yeqtbcfzk8zmjq58yxbtmrrguy/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/4ff46263/attachment.html>
Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the "public domain". Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on. Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users at sqlite.org/msg24372.html A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because it would not be considered by the OSI: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html I don''t mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion that not everything is so black-and-white. "There''s a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. And that''s the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) except for the ideological point about getting ''out of the copyright game''." -- Chad Perrin Cheers, Norbert
Yeah, that''s why you should, when releasing into Public Domain, and also release under WTFPL ;) -- Matma Rex
My personal favorites are the MIT and BSD licneses -- both are similar, and basically grant people the right to do whatever they want provided that they preserve attribution in source code (so called "permissive licenses"). MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there''s only one version. For this reason, it''s my personal favorite. There''s actually 3 versions of the BSD license: 4-clause, 3-clause, and 2-clause: - 2-clause is functionally identical to the MIT license. If you want to go with this, just use the MIT license to prevent confusion. :) - 3-clause adds the restriction that the original author''s name can''t be used in advertising. - Avoid the 4-clause version -- it has an annoying advertising clause that I''ve never heard anything good about. There''s also the Apache license, which is similar to BSD. However, it''s a much stronger document from a legal perspective, and adds a patent grant. This comes at the expense of readability. (Roughly 3 paragraphs vs 25 paragraphs) Avoid public domain -- as has been mentioned, some jurisdictions don''t recognize an author''s right to place a work into the public domain before copyright expires. For this reason, it''s legally ambiguous, which is bad for the people using your code. There''s also no warranty disclaimer, so somebody could (theoretically) take you to court if your code has bugs and something breaks. I recommend reading this PDF, which goes into a lot of detail on these three licenses: http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/ch02.pdf -- Trevor On Wednesday, May 2, 2012, Jenna Fox wrote:> A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a > software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What > licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? > > > ? > Jenna > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/ade61867/attachment-0001.html>
This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics (A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source ''split'') to students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this''ll make me revisit the slides... - DaveE> Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the > "public domain". > > Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate > a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition > for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on. > Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the > reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). > > SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but > they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: > > http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html > > http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users at sqlite.org/msg24372.html > > A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because > it would not be considered by the OSI: > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html > > I don''t mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion > that not everything is so black-and-white. > > "There''s a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is > simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating > non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. > And that''s the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive > licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but > somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything > Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) > except for the ideological point about getting ''out of the copyright > game''." -- Chad Perrin > > Cheers, > Norbert > _______________________________________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Yeah, I''m surprised too. I only gave a one word response of my favourite license, but damn! Everyone else flourished with good information! It''s nice when something little like this sparks a discussion Anyways, I like zlib because it gives great freedoms for the consumers but makes sure that people can''t claim they wrote the original software. It encourages a thank you for people who use your product but does not enforce it. Also it''s really short so people *actually* might read it! Cheers! Isak Andersson Dave Everitt <deveritt at innotts.co.uk> skrev: This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics (A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source ''split'') to students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this''ll make me revisit the slides... - DaveE> Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the > "public domain". > > Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate > a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition > for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on. > Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the > reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). > > SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but > they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: > > http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html > > http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users at sqlite.org/msg24372.html > > A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because > it would not be considered by the OSI: > > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html > > I don''t mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion > that not everything is so black-and-white. > > "There''s a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is > simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating > non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. > And that''s the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive > licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but > somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything > Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) > except for the ideological point about getting ''out of the copyright > game''." -- Chad Perrin > > Cheers, > Norbert >_____________________________________________> Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list_____________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list _____________________________________________ Unlimited TV & Full Length Movies Online. No extra fees. Free Trial. http://click.lavabit.com/4qbucuu8xmna5ytg9ptgoct3b9pz4ikttr6iky66jaaotguqz9ny/ _____________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120503/eec8cbb9/attachment.html>
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote:> MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there''s only > one version. For this reason, it''s my personal favorite.Heh. Actually, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions Or at the vary least, it''s still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat license has received much support as "MIT license" in various comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous anymore. Cheers, Paul -- Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: paul at luon.net Jabber/GTalk: paul at luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little Camping app: ''a guide to software licenses'' :-)> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote: >> MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there''s >> only >> one version. For this reason, it''s my personal favorite. > > Heh. Actually, it is not: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions > Or at the vary least, it''s still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat > license has received much support as "MIT license" in various > comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous > anymore. > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: paul at luon.net > Jabber/GTalk: paul at luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 > _______________________________________________
I''m not surprised people have an opinion and are informed about these things. I''m old enough to remember how Microsoft sucked the life out of the desktop software industry due to their anti-competitive practises. They were able to do this cuz they could keep their source code secret, it enabled their monopoly and helped them use their monopoly to their competitive advantage. The only reason software does not suck any more is because of the GPL. Period. thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds. :-) It''s all true, I tells ya. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Dave Everitt <deveritt at innotts.co.uk>wrote:> Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little Camping > app: ''a guide to software licenses'' :-) > > > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote: >> >>> MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there''s only >>> one version. For this reason, it''s my personal favorite. >>> >> >> Heh. Actually, it is not: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**MIT_license#Various_versions<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions> >> Or at the vary least, it''s still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat >> license has received much support as "MIT license" in various >> comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous >> anymore. >> >> Cheers, >> Paul >> >> -- >> Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: paul at luon.net >> Jabber/GTalk: paul at luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 >> ______________________________**_________________ >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Camping-list mailing list > Camping-list at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/**listinfo/camping-list<http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120503/be78b5fb/attachment.html>
I''ll second that. I remember Ballmer''s "Linux is a cancer..." and gave an overview of the origins and rationale to students in a (shame - the only Powerpoint) presentation I still use: http://www.slideshare.net/cubexplorer/opensource-5479951 - DaveE> thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds. :-)-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120504/71dccfe0/attachment-0001.html>