Re: Redy 1.0.0 roadmap

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message
ryanj said...

I forgot to mention, i will probably change the license of Redy from LesserGPL to something more like the MIT License. I would like to discuss this with the community before the next release. What license do you think Redy should be released under?

The MIT licence allows closed source derivative works, and even if that is what you want,

http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html said...

The MIT license is one of the first-generation academic-style licenses. It is still very widely used, especially in connection with the the code for the X window system.

This license is obsolete. It is poorly crafted for modern conditions. The OSI recommends AFL instead; see the commentary attached to AFL for a discussion of the the MIT licence's weaknesses.

Anyway, after wasting most of yesterday researching these licences (why does everything have to be so complicated?),

Phix said...

Licence

Phix is open source. You can do pretty much anything you like with it, except:

  • Ship a closed source version of it or vary the availability of any part, original or additional.
  • Publish a "cut down" version unless you also provide a clearly visible link to a "complete" version.
  • Prohibit the inclusion of any modifications/ideas to Phix into future releases by any other party.
  • Object in any way other than meaningful and civilised debate should they be or not be incorporated.
  • Delete or obscure any author or origin details, or otherwise falsely claim any part as your own work.
  • Make malicious changes of any kind, including any intended to defame or discredit either author or product.
  • Implicate the product in any activity deemed illegal under current UK law, irrespective of your location.

You may sell a modified version of Phix, as long as you do not give away part of it. The source and binaries of the compiler itself are deemed "as one" and cannot be sold or given away separately. A reasonable "cut down" version might exclude all the non-essential demo\bench\test\doc\sfx stuff, but if the compiler sources are omitted they must be readily available elsewhere. Should you publish a modified version of Phix you automatically grant an absolute right to all interested parties to freely plagiarise or reverse engineer any useful features. Such rights do not extend to products or features unrelated to the compilation, interpretation, debugging, analysis, or production of plain text source code that just happen to be written in Phix.

The compiler itself is released under the strongly copyleft Open Software License version 3.0 whereby any derivative work must be afforded the same rights (source code etc) as the original work, while the run-time and library components, along with all demo programs, are released under it’s much more permissive companion the Academic Free License version 3.0 which is non-copyleft and allows use of those items in commercial closed source proprietary applications.

I am still open to a bit of discussion, criticism and ridicule to this...

Pete

new topic     » goto parent     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

Search



Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu