Hi,
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.
Thanks,
Peter
Hi,
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
I believe there is a license like this but it really goes against what
open source 'should' be about. This would make your software
non-free, and thus would be incompatible with the GPL and several
other licenses.
Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.
This is a list of licenses here:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#SoftwareLicenses
The Ruby community has a strong leaning towards the BSD/MIT licenses
which are Free Software licenses that are GPL compatible but not
copylefted (meaning they are less restrictive than the GPL).
However, a decent compromise is the license of Ruby itself, which
allows people to choose whether or not they want to copyleft their
derivative works.
I personally am an advocate of the GNU General Public License.
However, the GPL can be very complex and also be too restrictive for
some peoples needs (though it is designed to be this way to prevent
the exploitation of free software) .
However, I will certainly save my GPL rants because they tend to
explode into flame wars on here.
Please do consider making your software GPL compatible (there are MANY
licenses to choose from), also think about the audience ( a lot of
Ruby guys like MIT/BSD licenses) and finally consider the type of
protection you want. (If copyleft appeals to you, the GPL is
strongest for this).
If in doubt, go with the license of Ruby. It's a bit of a confusing
setup but it should keep everyone at least halfway happy. 
If you want my full GPL story, feel free to contact me off list. I
respect those who do not approve of the GPL in it's entirety, so I
won't flame on about it here.
On 11/8/05, petermichaux@yahoo.com <petermichaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
Selon petermichaux@yahoo.com:
Hi,
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
I doubt such a license would be considered open source. At least not the way you
describe it.
Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.
http://www.opensource.org/ is the authoritative source for open source licenses.
http://swan.iis.sinica.edu.tw/LicenseWizard/OSI_License_compare_v3.0.4EN.pdf is
a nice PDF file which shows most OSI certified licenses and compares them in a
table.
--
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
An open-source/Free Software license cannot enforce this, as they
operate solely on the bounds of copyright law. Copyright licenses can
only govern what you must do when you make copies of something.
Modifying or improving software is not copying it. In order to do what
you describe and make it legally enforceable, you would need a legally
binding *contract* that every person who receives your software must
agree to.
Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.
The Free Software Foundation has a list of many licenses and gives
their qualifications as to whether or not they are Free Software
licenses, how well they work with that most ubiquitous of Free
Software Licenses, the GPL, as well as some licenses that you may
think are Free but actually have some restrictions that make them not
Free:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
The comparison is mainly to the GPL.
On 11/8/05, petermichaux@yahoo.com <petermichaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
petermichaux@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?
There was the APSL version 1.2, but then that wasn't open source it was public source. I can't remember whether it was OSI approved - the APSL 2.0 satisfies the criteria for Free Software but doesn't have the restrictions v1 did.
Hi,
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.Thanks,
Peter
As others have said, it's not a very open source thing to do. I would
recommend just putting up a polite notice on your page and in the
comments at the top of your code requesting patches to be submitted if
modifications are made that could be of use to the community. Most
people using open source code will be quite happy to do that
voluntarily, in my experience.
Cheers,
Bob Aman
If you're seriously interested in Open Source licensing issues, I
strongly recommend Lawrence Rosen's book _Open Source Licensing :
Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law_. It includes a survey
of the major types of OS licenses (GPL, BSD, etc.) and explains their
differences, strengths, and weaknesses.
Dido Sevilla wrote:
I think I've seen an open source licence that requires any
modifications/improvements to be reported back to the original project.
Anyone here know if that licence really exists?An open-source/Free Software license cannot enforce this, as they
operate solely on the bounds of copyright law. Copyright licenses can
only govern what you must do when you make copies of something.
Modifying or improving software is not copying it. In order to do what
you describe and make it legally enforceable, you would need a legally
binding *contract* that every person who receives your software must
agree to.
This is actually not quite accurate. There is an argument to be made on
the effects of the *licencing* of copyrighted work, and that is the crux.
The copyright is an absolute which allows the author to dictate the terms
abiding which --and only abiding which-- the copying can be done. While
the copyright itself is very narrow in scope, its absoluteness allows
much leeway in defining the licencing terms.
In effect, the author can set any arbitrary rules as his licencing;
if the user fails to comply, they automatically lose the licence and
therefore the standard copyright clause kicks in and the user will be
in violation of it (since it allows no copying whatsoever).
Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear only
duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation of
the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
the copyright law
Is there a good, brief summary comparison of the main open source
licenses? I've looked around and the comparisons are either simpleton
or just lists of way to many licenses.The Free Software Foundation has a list of many licenses and gives
their qualifications as to whether or not they are Free Software
licenses, how well they work with that most ubiquitous of Free
Software Licenses, the GPL, as well as some licenses that you may
think are Free but actually have some restrictions that make them not
Free:Various Licenses and Comments about Them - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
The comparison is mainly to the GPL.
E
On 11/8/05, petermichaux@yahoo.com <petermichaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
Selon Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org>:
Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear only
duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation of
the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
the copyright law
In this case, you are the one that is incorrect. Copyright only covers copying
(as its name indicates) and redistributing, basically disallowing both (except
for fair use in some countries). *Use* is *never* covered by copyright. That's
why those "End-User License Agreements" which restrict use are really contracts
rather than copyright licenses, require agreement, and are based on contract law
rather than copyright law.
So it is *not* a reasonable interpretation of the applicable laws to force
specific user patterns with a copyright license, even with the strictest
interpretation of the copyright law you want. Copyright only refers to copying
and distribution. As long as those aren't involved, you can't invoke copyright
law to restrict the end user. If you want to restrict use, you *have* to use a
contract, or one of those EULAs which are often void anyway because they don't
follow contract law.
--
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
Selon Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org>:
Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear
only duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation
of
the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
the copyright lawIn this case, you are the one that is incorrect. Copyright only
covers copying (as its name indicates) and redistributing, basically
disallowing both (except for fair use in some countries). *Use* is
*never* covered by copyright. That's why those "End-User License
Agreements" which restrict use are really contracts rather than
copyright licenses, require agreement, and are based on contract law
rather than copyright law.
Wrong!
The five copyrights of the authors in the US are as follows...
To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Computer programs and software are generally covered under the literary rules, unless they also include music and art.
Under Canadian copyright law and I suspect some European law, author's also have rights of attribution.
--
J Lambert
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
Selon Eero Saynatkari <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org>:
Sure, it is not exactly a breeze demonstrating in court that it is a
reasonable request to mandate anyone using your program must wear only
duck-patterned underwear but it is a reasonable interpretation of
the applicable laws, particularly with a strict interpretation of
the copyright lawIn this case, you are the one that is incorrect. Copyright only covers copying
(as its name indicates) and redistributing, basically disallowing both (except
for fair use in some countries). *Use* is *never* covered by copyright. That's
why those "End-User License Agreements" which restrict use are really contracts
rather than copyright licenses, require agreement, and are based on contract law
rather than copyright law.So it is *not* a reasonable interpretation of the applicable laws to force
specific user patterns with a copyright license, even with the strictest
interpretation of the copyright law you want. Copyright only refers to copying
and distribution. As long as those aren't involved, you can't invoke copyright
law to restrict the end user. If you want to restrict use, you *have* to use a
contract, or one of those EULAs which are often void anyway because they don't
follow contract law.
No, no, I am sure I am right
Anyone not fully complying with my licencing is violating my copyright because
the only way they can not avoid violating it is by my permission, obtained in
the form of compliance to my licencing. In other words, if you fail to wear
the duck-patterns then your licence will be revoked and you fall back to normal
copyright which states you have no rights to my works.
Above assuming you are doing something that would violate the normal copyright.
There are specific actions copyright protects (among them any public use) but
even just obtaining the software could fall under that category
--
Christophe Grandsire.
E
Selon "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@alltel.net>:
Wrong!
The five copyrights of the authors in the US are as follows...To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
That's copy.
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
Only if they are to be distributed. The author can't forbid you to write your
own little story based on his that you will never show to anyone. An author
can't forbid you to take an image from a movie and make it your screensaver.
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
Distribution.
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic,
and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other
audiovisual works;
Doesn't apply to software, which was the sole focus of this thread.
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical,
dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or
other audiovisual work; and in the case of sound recordings, to perform the
work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
"Publicly" is the keyword here. And what public display means for software is a
matter of discussion. Is using a web browser in an internet cafe where everyone
can see my screen considered public display? In any case, this is not personal
use, so it doesn't influence what I said.
Computer programs and software are generally covered under the literary
rules, unless they also include music and art.
But those are usually licensed separately. Look at how Firefox and Thunderbird
are licensed differently from the icon art that they contain for instance.
Under Canadian copyright law and I suspect some European law, author's also
have rights of attribution.
Which have no meaning unless you're redistributing.
I stand by what I say: personal use is *not* covered by copyright. I can buy a
book, cut it in small pieces and glue all the sentences on my wall if I want,
and the author has no business forbidding me to do that. Not in the law and not
in practice. And "public display" is not personal use, especially for software,
so it doesn't change what I said.
--
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
"Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@alltel.net>:
Wrong!
The five copyrights of the authors in the US are as follows...To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
That's copy.
No shit sherlock. Brilliant.
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
Only if they are to be distributed. The author can't forbid you to
write your own little story based on his that you will never show to
anyone. An author can't forbid you to take an image from a movie and
make it your screensaver.
One cannot create a derivative work unless its authorized. Yes I can write a Darth Vader story that noone will see. I can sing Britney Spears songs in the shower. I can play with Bob's Ruby library for calculating lunar orbits. Obviously the law doesn't really apply to nor really suit the mental masturbations of hobbyist programmers.
But it's just as obvious that the restrictions and conditions placed on derivative works in a license are important to those who aren't just playing with themselves.
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by
sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;Distribution.
Not shit sherlock. I can read.
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical,
dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures
and other audiovisual works;Doesn't apply to software, which was the sole focus of this thread.
Yes it does. There is a significant body of software which broadcasts to users and is performed publicly. This right is usually flexed by authors in setting commercial usage/non-public/private only restrictions on their work. Just as an example, the Apache group could have explicitly forbidden anything but personal/private use of their web server in their license. It probably wouldn't be all that fun to run a web server that you couldn't allow the public to view.
Computer programs and software are generally covered under the
literary rules, unless they also include music and art.But those are usually licensed separately. Look at how Firefox and
Thunderbird are licensed differently from the icon art that they
contain for instance.
No not usually. The computer game industry that doesn't license the use of it's game, music, and images separately, at least not to the usual customers or end users. In fact in many cases the protected imagery is generated by the program itself.
Under Canadian copyright law and I suspect some European law,
author's also have rights of attribution.Which have no meaning unless you're redistributing.
Not sure what you mean by no meaning. In US law it's almost spurious as it's subsumed into other parts of copyright law. For example section 506 which makes it criminal to remove copyright notices and attributions.
I stand by what I say: personal use is *not* covered by copyright. I
can buy a book, cut it in small pieces and glue all the sentences on
my wall if I want, and the author has no business forbidding me to do
that. Not in the law and not in practice. And "public display" is not
personal use, especially for software, so it doesn't change what I
said.
And it's pretty much not relevant to professional programmers. It's like insisting you can run around naked in your house holding your weiner farting and the author or law cannot stop you. Who cares? It's a stupid waste of time.
Use restrictions are legit and affect those using the software publicly, for hire, contract or commercially. Take the BSD and other licenses advertising clauses. Those that require programs to display copyright information to the user or advertising to the user, or in some cases demand you don't associate the author with your program. All legit conditions for granting the rights to use or perform the software.
--
J Lambert
Hi --
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
Christophe Grandsire wrote:
"Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc@alltel.net>:
Wrong!
The five copyrights of the authors in the US are as follows...To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
That's copy.
No shit sherlock. Brilliant.
(etc.)
Could you guys please take this thread elsewhere? It's repetitive and
getting unpleasant.
David
--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net
Two points:
1) The original posters question about an open source license that
requires publication and sharing of modifications
This is the RECIPROCAL PUBLIC LICENSE
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
It is open source but not free software. Some people are
interchanging the two concepts.
Whether or not the RPL can stand up in court (it probably can't) does
not prevent the OSI from listing it as an 'open source' license.
2) Do we really need a flame war every time someone asks a licensing
question? Seriously, I doubt the value of these long heated debates
(though I myself have participated in them in the past) and I feel
like they take away from the otherwise productive nature of this
group.
If we're going to flame on about licenses, we should probably rename
the thread to reflect that so that we don't get the answer to the OP's
question lost.
Or we should go rant somewhere else. Is there a licensing mailing
list / newsgroup?
If so... I'd love to flame on over there 
These are the two specific parts of the RPL that force the developer
to pass along derivative works.
b. Make the Source Code for any Extensions You Deploy available in a
timely fashion via an Electronic Distribution Mechanism such as FTP or
HTTP download.
c. Notify the Licensor of the availability of Source Code to Your
Extensions in a timely fashion and include in such notice a brief
description of the Extensions, the distinctive title used, and
instructions on how to acquire the Source Code and future updates.
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php)
On 11/8/05, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
1) The original posters question about an open source license that
requires publication and sharing of modificationsThis is the RECIPROCAL PUBLIC LICENSE
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
Thanks for the straight answer.
It is open source but not free software. Some people are
interchanging the two concepts.Whether or not the RPL can stand up in court (it probably can't) does
not prevent the OSI from listing it as an 'open source' license.
plus some more good info.
2) Do we really need a flame war every time someone asks a licensing
question?
I'm just information gathering. Learning about oss licences. I not
necessarily going to use this type of licence.
so that we don't get the answer to the OP's question lost.
Thanks again for finding the question!
- Peter
David A. Black wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
No shit sherlock. Brilliant.
(etc.)
Could you guys please take this thread elsewhere? It's repetitive and
getting unpleasant.
I thought the first "No shit sherlock" was forgiveable, but that second one... now THAT was totally uncalled for!!
_why
Thanks for the straight answer.
Happy to help
I'm just information gathering. Learning about oss licences. I not
necessarily going to use this type of licence.
I suggest reading both the OSI definitions of licenses as well as the
FSF definitions. All free software is open source but not all open
source software is free. Keep in mind, free does not necessarily mean
free beer, there are plenty of commercial free software applications
out there.
When possible it pays to be both free and open source software (F/OSS)
GPL compatibility is desireable, and there are many licenses that are
compatible with the GPL.
This allows you to select the license that best fits your need without
shutting out those who are in favor of the copyleft.
On the gripping hand, be careful of the reaction if you decide to
actually use the GPL. Many people oppose the copyleft, and this will
effectively shut them out of your development.
Hope this helps and good luck with your licensing issues. If you need
any additional suggestions, feel free to contact me off list.
On 11/8/05, petermichaux@yahoo.com <petermichaux@yahoo.com> wrote:
why the lucky stiff wrote:
I thought the first "No [oops] sherlock" was forgiveable,
but that second one...
Not only that -- the spelling was iffy:
Had to go.
daz