What kind of open source license do you use...
in [Lisp]
|
From: D Herring on 31 May 2010 22:39 On 05/31/2010 09:04 PM, Rob Warnock wrote: > D Herring<dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote: > +--------------- > | On 05/31/2010 06:02 AM, Didier Verna wrote: > |> ...for your Common Lisp software ? > | > | IMO, people should consider the Boost Software License for libraries. > | > | * "Standard" libraries need to be usable in both free and commercial > | code. Thus GCC and its libs do not require GPL. > | * The LGPL is complicated. The LLGPL... > | * BSD with advertising puts an undue burden on users of many > | libraries. (Even FreeBSD backing away) > | * MIT is almost right > | > | The BSL was designed in 2003 to address these and other issues. > | Give it a read. > | http://www.boost.org/users/license.html > +--------------- > > Even better (IMHO) is the ISC license [used on BIND, etc.]: > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt From the BSL page * Must not require that the license appear with executables or other binary uses of the library. Part of the ISC, "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies", requires the copyright to accompany binaries. I'm not keen on that requirement. If you buy pong, do you care which libraries it uses? - Daniel
From: Pascal J. Bourguignon on 1 Jun 2010 04:04 D Herring <dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> writes: > On 05/31/2010 09:04 PM, Rob Warnock wrote: >> D Herring<dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote: >> +--------------- >> | On 05/31/2010 06:02 AM, Didier Verna wrote: >> |> ...for your Common Lisp software ? >> | >> | IMO, people should consider the Boost Software License for libraries. >> | >> | * "Standard" libraries need to be usable in both free and commercial >> | code. Thus GCC and its libs do not require GPL. >> | * The LGPL is complicated. The LLGPL... >> | * BSD with advertising puts an undue burden on users of many >> | libraries. (Even FreeBSD backing away) >> | * MIT is almost right >> | >> | The BSL was designed in 2003 to address these and other issues. >> | Give it a read. >> | http://www.boost.org/users/license.html >> +--------------- >> >> Even better (IMHO) is the ISC license [used on BIND, etc.]: >> >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt > > From the BSL page > * Must not require that the license appear with executables or other > binary uses of the library. > > Part of the ISC, "provided that the above copyright notice and this > permission notice appear in all copies", requires the copyright to > accompany binaries. > > I'm not keen on that requirement. If you buy pong, do you care which > libraries it uses? It you know that pong uses libcrap which is supposed to do the same as libcorrect, but full of bugs, while ping uses libcorrect, wouldn't you choose to use libcorrect (assuming equivalence of the rest of the code)? Even better, if you can read the source of ping, wouldn't you rather choose it than a pong binary of which you have no idea whether it's any good at all, no matter how many open source libraries it ripped? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Rob Warnock on 1 Jun 2010 19:04 D Herring <dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote: +--------------- | Rob Warnock wrote: | > Even better (IMHO) is the ISC license [used on BIND, etc.]: | > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt | | From the BSL page | * Must not require that the license appear with executables or other | binary uses of the library. | | Part of the ISC, "provided that the above copyright notice and this | permission notice appear in all copies", requires the copyright to | accompany binaries. | | I'm not keen on that requirement. +--------------- IANAL, but I believe that you can satisfy that requirement for binaries by including the license as a text string in the binary, visible with "strings" or a command-line option or equiv. In any case, I don't think it *has* to be in a separate file [and there are points in favor of it *not* being]. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock <rpw3(a)rpw3.org> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: D Herring on 1 Jun 2010 22:26 On 06/01/2010 04:04 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: > D Herring<dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> writes: >> Part of the ISC, "provided that the above copyright notice and this >> permission notice appear in all copies", requires the copyright to >> accompany binaries. >> >> I'm not keen on that requirement. If you buy pong, do you care which >> libraries it uses? > > It you know that pong uses libcrap which is supposed to do the same as > libcorrect, but full of bugs, while ping uses libcorrect, wouldn't you > choose to use libcorrect (assuming equivalence of the rest of the > code)? > > Even better, if you can read the source of ping, wouldn't you rather > choose it than a pong binary of which you have no idea whether it's > any good at all, no matter how many open source libraries it ripped? Agree (I think) 100% with your position, but think this license clause doesn't help it. The issue is not what to do if a program is open source. In that case, you would probably inspect the source before the binary. The copyright statement does not say whether pong's libcrap has vendor-specific patches to fix the bugs. The issue is requiring the full copyright statement to accompany the executable, either in the docs or baked into the binary. The copyright statement is almost useless here; the code to which it applies isn't exactly available. It generally add a burden to the developer (which many developers forget). The author rarely bakes a get-copyright-string into their library, the user rarely makes such a string available to the end user, and who knows whether it even gets into the executable. My Garmin GPS has special copyright pages for a handful of libraries. Even I, knowing what they mean, don't particularly care about its use of libjpeg and others. This information isn't useful. It doesn't help me modify the unit, and the statements don't include any vendor-specific diffs. Do you really want your copyright statement appearing to users of the closed-source pong? Wouldn't they say, "Hey, that's pjb's cool lib; pong must be good stuff." To gain wide acceptance, a "standard" library must be usable in both open and closed software. I don't think this copyright-in-binaries requirement helps either camp, but it adds an extra burden for each library containing it. - Daniel
From: D Herring on 1 Jun 2010 22:30
On 06/01/2010 07:04 PM, Rob Warnock wrote: > D Herring<dherring(a)at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote: > +--------------- > | Rob Warnock wrote: > |> Even better (IMHO) is the ISC license [used on BIND, etc.]: > |> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/isc-license.txt > | > | From the BSL page > | * Must not require that the license appear with executables or other > | binary uses of the library. > | > | Part of the ISC, "provided that the above copyright notice and this > | permission notice appear in all copies", requires the copyright to > | accompany binaries. > | > | I'm not keen on that requirement. > +--------------- > > IANAL, but I believe that you can satisfy that requirement for > binaries by including the license as a text string in the binary, > visible with "strings" or a command-line option or equiv. In any > case, I don't think it *has* to be in a separate file [and there > are points in favor of it *not* being]. What do you do when its baked into your TV? Your 8-character MP3 player or screen-less "shuffle"? I understand the school behind BSD wanted advertising. I don't believe it bought them much. If your program uses tens of libraries, the mass of copyright statements becomes chaff. If your program doesn't use many libraries... - Daniel |