The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DDEthel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Every now and then I see a post from someone who needs help finding a license... so I guess its time I join the club.
First, I would like to mention that Yes, I have spent a while searching on Google. I've looked through the lists on the Open Source Initiative, and the Free Software Foundation. Odds are I've overlooked something, but I haven't been able to find one I think is suitable.
So that's where I'm at right now. I'm hoping that someone who is more familiar with commonly used Open Source Licenses can point me in the right direction.
So what I'm looking for in a license should include some of the following:
1) Semi-Viral License (i.e. all modified versions is under the same license)....
2) But, you can combine it with non-licensed work.
3) The licensed source code must be free and publicly available (even if a derivative work is commercial and/or includes non-licensed proprietary work).
Again, I'm just hoping that someone can give me a lead in the right direction. Any help that you guys can give is greatly appreciated.
NOTE: I'm sorry if this is not the right area for this. I looked at the topics and subtopics in the other areas of the forum, and none of them seemed to fit.
1) The LGPL does it. It generally requires you to keep the licensed code separate from the non-licensed work. That was a bad word choice on my part. My apologies.
2) I'm not that picky at the moment as to what constitutes a modification/addition. Again, I'm hoping people who might know more about this can just point me in the right direction. Many of the more elaborate licenses include a list of definitions to further clarify the License.
seens like the LGPL is the license to you, but i do not know if i understood point 3 corectly, did you say that even if the code that uses your code isn't licensed under the same license, the author needs to provide his code? if so you want the GPL license.
just to remember, the GPL license do let you sell your work, but requires you to provide source code for it. that's why enterprizes generally try to avoid it.
if all you want is that all modifications to your work be at the same license, letting source code that is directly linked to yours but does not modify it be at any other license be it open or not, then you want LGPL
well, that's about anything i know on this subject, and my message is writen with a english so broken that i think it won't be useful at all, but i hope you find your license soon.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
Personally I am a big proponent of MS-PL. This will let others create commercial and non-commercial works so long as you are given some credit and it is very easy to understand. However, I am a .NET programmer and my open source project is written in .NET. This might not be appropriate but I recommend you look it over.
We can provide guidance, but to be sure you must consult with a lawyer, having said that, the Mozilla Public License seems to fit in your requirements, so you may want to take a look at it. Also i'll share my thoughts on this, if you're developing a library, please avoid GPL, i often find a nuisance that there is a magnific library that i want to use in a closed source (or commercial project) and i have to share all my code just for the privilege of using a library, even if i just use the vanilla unmodified version. Just my two cents.
A good example of this is libreDWG. It is GPL3 but cannot be used by any of the projects in the CAD space because most (if not all) are GPL2 which is incompatible. For example, libreCAD is a fork of a project that is GPL2 and therefore cannot easily change licenses. This makes libreDWG essentially worthless and it is dying as a result. Also, just my two cents.
I agree. That's one of the reasons I don't want to use the GPL. I have no problem if people use my code alongside their own proprietary code. What I do want is to make sure that if they find anyway to improve my code (i.e. modify it) that they are obligated to put it under the same license.
"by 2014 significant new methods of cybercrime will emerge. These new threats include the utilization of Internet connected devices to actually carry out physical crimes, including murders and cybercriminals leveraging mobile device Near Field Communications (NFC) to wreak havoc with banking and e-commerce." [^].
in: "IID Says 2013 Cyberthreats are So 2012; Predicts Two Years Ahead:" report issued by IID, InternetIdentity.com.
IID's report cited by Robert X. Cringeley in: "By 2014, the Internet will be the death of us all" [^].
~ revised to take into account the tender feelings of Alan Burkhart, and GeekForChrist, for VB: VB was, years ago, very good to me, after all ! ~
I am going to start planning my own euthanasia, now. All-in-all, I think VB would be the right language to use since that's a form of death-wish. Since, surely, a long period of self-torture should proceed the ultimate self-snuff: I will have to carefully consider the relative benefits of Prolog, PHP (suggested by Brady Kelley), and APL (perhaps Eiffel ?), for implementing my death-wish as painfully as possible.
"We live in a world ruled by fictions: mass merchandising, advertising, politics as advertising, instant translation of science, technology, into popular imagery, increasing blur of identity in realms of consumer goods, preempting any free, original, imaginative, response to experience by the television screen. We live in an enormous novel. For a writer it's less necessary to invent a novel's fictional content: fiction's already there. A writer's task is to invent a reality." J. G. Ballard, 1974