www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Pick a license!

reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
into SF in a few weeks.

I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is L/GPL
good?

All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
words;
I'm just looking for simple advice.

[btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
    (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
Director, Synesis Software
    (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator
    (http://www.stlsoft.org)

-----------------------------------------------------
Jun 10 2004
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron71 yahoo.com> writes:
Matthew wrote:

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
 
 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
L/GPL
 good?
 


LGPL is just as restrictive as the GPL when it comes to static linkage, 
so that's something to consider. Users will be forced to link 
dynamically if they don't intend to release their source.

I'm a big fan of BSD-style licenses meself.
Jun 10 2004
parent =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <knud NetRunner.all-technology.com> writes:
The license you chose depend on how 
you like others use your code.

GPL is for forcing every distributed modification to and use 
of your code to be open source.
Here your insure that it is open source to all users of your code.

BSD here your want credit from uses of your code and it may not be open
source to all users.

I am a fan of double licensing GPL + Proprietary license.

Knud
Jun 12 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
 into SF in a few weeks.
 
 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
 
 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
L/GPL
 good?
 
 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
words;
 I'm just looking for simple advice.
 
 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
 
 Cheers


Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
-- Software ID: <s/w id>
-- Version:     <version data>
-- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
--              All rights reserved.
-- Licence:
-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
-- warranty.
-- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
-- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
-- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
-- any damages arising from the use of this software.
--
-- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
-- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
-- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
-- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
--    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
--    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
-- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
--    the it must ...
--   a) be plainly be marked as such,
--   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
--   c) include this notice, unaltered.
--------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
11/Jun/04 4:46:54 PM
Jun 10 2004
parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:cabl2v$chb$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
 into SF in a few weeks.

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is




L/GPL

 good?

 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of




words;

 I'm just looking for simple advice.

 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

 Cheers


 Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

 --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
 -- Software ID: <s/w id>
 -- Version:     <version data>
 -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
 --              All rights reserved.
 -- Licence:
 -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
 -- warranty.
 -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
 -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
 -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
 -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
 --
 -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
 -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
 -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
 -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
 --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
 -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
 --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
 -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
 --    the it must ...
 --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
 --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
 --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
 --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*


That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved
list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project
is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.

But thanks anway. :-)
Jun 11 2004
next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <cabm3p$eon$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:cabl2v$chb$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
 into SF in a few weeks.

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is




L/GPL

 good?

 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of




words;

 I'm just looking for simple advice.

 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

 Cheers


 Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

 --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
 -- Software ID: <s/w id>
 -- Version:     <version data>
 -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
 --              All rights reserved.
 -- Licence:
 -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
 -- warranty.
 -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
 -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
 -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
 -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
 --
 -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
 -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
 -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
 -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
 --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
 -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
 --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
 -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
 --    the it must ...
 --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
 --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
 --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
 --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*


That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved
list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project
is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.

But thanks anway. :-)


i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)
Jun 11 2004
next sibling parent Derek <derek psyc.ward> writes:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:55:43 +0000 (UTC), clayasaurus wrote:


 In article <cabm3p$eon$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:cabl2v$chb$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
 into SF in a few weeks.

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is




L/GPL

 good?

 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of




words;

 I'm just looking for simple advice.

 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

 Cheers


 Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

 --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
 -- Software ID: <s/w id>
 -- Version:     <version data>
 -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
 --              All rights reserved.
 -- Licence:
 -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
 -- warranty.
 -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
 -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
 -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
 -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
 --
 -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
 -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
 -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
 -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
 --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
 -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
 --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
 -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
 --    the it must ...
 --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
 --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
 --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
 --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*


That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved
list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project
is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.

But thanks anway. :-)


 
 i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)


Thanks. I got this from a friend and wondered about it origins.
-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cacklv$1n7a$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 In article <cabm3p$eon$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
news:cabl2v$chb$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to








put

 into SF in a few weeks.

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred








SF-friendly

 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is




L/GPL

 good?

 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of




words;

 I'm just looking for simple advice.

 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

 Cheers


 Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

 --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
 -- Software ID: <s/w id>
 -- Version:     <version data>
 -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
 --              All rights reserved.
 -- Licence:
 -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
 -- warranty.
 -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
 -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
 -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
 -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
 --
 -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
 -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
 -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
 -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
 --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
 -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
 --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
 -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
 --    the it must ...
 --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
 --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
 --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
 --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*


That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their




approved

list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this




project

is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.

But thanks anway. :-)


 i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)


Interesting. Thanks for the info.
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Matthew wrote:

 That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved
 list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this
project
 is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.
 
 But thanks anway. :-)


You can specify "other" and scribble it in the remarks field, if memory 
serves.

There's a big list of the things at http://opensource.org

  -- andy
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent "Bruno A. Costa" <bruno codata.com.br> writes:
Matthew wrote:


 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to
 put into SF in a few weeks.
 
 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred
 SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
 
 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
 L/GPL good?
 
 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
 words; I'm just looking for simple advice.
 
 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
 
 Cheers
 
 


GPL and LGPL are good, but a bit restrictive.

I like the BSD License. Simple and efficient.

Cheers.

Bruno.
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
I've always liked the revised BSD license.  The one that doesn't require
including stuff in documentation shipped with derived products.

Sean
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Stephen Waits <steve waits.net> writes:
BSD, MIT, Artistic, etc..

--Steve
Jun 11 2004
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
Thanks to everybody for the suggestions. I went for the BSD (which is what I'd
based the Synesis licenses on some years back).

I'll keep y'all appraised of the project if it proves to be useful, and I get it
to any reasonable level of maturity.

"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:cabgb0$5lq$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put
 into SF in a few weeks.

 I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
 license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

 Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is


L/GPL

 good?

 All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of


words;

 I'm just looking for simple advice.

 [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so
 there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

 Cheers


 -- 
 Matthew Wilson

 Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
     (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
 Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
     (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
 Director, Synesis Software
     (www.synesis.com.au)
 STLSoft moderator
     (http://www.stlsoft.org)

 -----------------------------------------------------
Jun 11 2004