1. ESL license
Since we're on the topic of the Euphoria Standard Library, what license are we
going to release this under if any? I'm assuming that we're going to use a
completely free, open-source license that's probably not copyleft or just release
it into the public domain. Public domain would probably be the best unless we
want to maintain some control over something (ie. "Modification is allowed only
if the list of contributors is not modified") or we want to explicitly declare no
warrantee on the library. Besides public domain I'd recommend the X11 or the 2-
or 3-clause versions of the BSD license. If we want to make this copyleft
(meaning any modifications to the library source must also be open source,
generally a bad idea) I'd recommend a very weak copyleft like the Mozilla
license. Our other option would be to write our own to cover explicitly what we
want.
2. Re: ESL license
Public domain would probably be best although there is something to be said for
licenses where useful changes have to be submitted 
=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
j.
3. Re: ESL license
Phew, you guys move fast ... in the time it took me to type my last post,
Derek had already suggested a very similar method for error handling
Gordon
4. Re: ESL license
Jason Gade wrote:
>
> Public domain would probably be best although there is something to be said
> for licenses
> where useful changes have to be submitted
>
> =====================================
> Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
>
> j.
>
Hi... I dont think there should be any license, just pure public domain. Only
one rule, any microeconomy money made should be split evenly to everyone who
helps with the development and maintenece. And ofcourse real money shouldnt be
involved, since this is open source.
Example:
Development Team
----------------
Christian Cuvier
Jason Gade
Jürgen Lüthje
Derek Newhall
Gordon Webster
The library gets $10 micro bucks, that means each of you five get $2.00.
If you get like $17, everyone gets $3.40. I will be happy to vote, and maybe
later help with the maintenece, and developement.
Regards,
Vincent
----------------------------------------------
___ __________ ___
/__/\ /__________\ |\ _\
\::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::|
\::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::|
\::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::|
\::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::|
\::,::/ |::| \:::::|
\___/ |__| \____|
.``.
',,'
5. Re: ESL license
D. Newhall wrote:
> Since we're on the topic of the Euphoria Standard Library, what license
> are we going to release this under if any? I'm assuming that we're
> going to use a completely free, open-source license that's probably not
> copyleft or just release it into the public domain. Public domain would
> probably be the best unless we want to maintain some control over
> something (ie. "Modification is allowed only if the list of
> contributors is not modified") or we want to explicitly declare no
> warrantee on the library. Besides public domain I'd recommend the X11
> or the 2- or 3-clause versions of the BSD license. If we want to make
> this copyleft (meaning any modifications to the library source must
> also be open source, generally a bad idea) I'd recommend a very weak
> copyleft like the Mozilla license. Our other option would be to write
> our own to cover explicitly what we want.
I also prefer a weak license. I'd like to have two points included:
1) We explicitly declare no warrantee on the library.
2) It should be clearly documented who wrote what. I.e. if someone
makes changes to ESL without talking to the group of 'official'
contributors, it must be documented that
a) this person didn't write the original code
b) the 'official' contributors didn't write the new code
Regards,
Juergen
6. Re: ESL license
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> I also prefer a weak license. I'd like to have two points included:
>
> 1) We explicitly declare no warrantee on the library.
> 2) It should be clearly documented who wrote what. I.e. if someone
> makes changes to ESL without talking to the group of 'official'
> contributors, it must be documented that
> a) this person didn't write the original code
> b) the 'official' contributors didn't write the new code
Here's a quick draft of a potential licnese I wrote up at work. The idea is that
it should maintain the points above yet also not interfere with closed source
program interfacing with it nor GPLed programs.
Euphoria Standard Library License (*DRAFT*)
Copyright (c) 2005 Derek A. Newhall and the Euphoria Standard Library Project
A) Definitions Used in This License
The term "License" shall mean this document containing the terms and services
for use, distribution, and modification.
The term "Licensor" shall mean, throughout this License, the initial copyright
owner(s) or legal representative(s) authorized by the copyright owner that is
granting the License.
The term "Work" shall mean, throughout this License, the software, document, or
other work of authorship that this License is applied to by the Licensor.
The term "Derivative Work" shall mean, throughout this License, any Work that
contains mataerial taken from the work from which it is derived.
The term "Licensee" shall mean, throughout this License, the individual or
entity that is exercising permissions granted by this License.
B) Terms and Conditions For Use, Copying, Distribution, and Modification
This License applies to any Work which contains an explicit notice placed by the
Licensor which states that the Work falls under the terms guaranteed by this
License to the Licensee.
This License gurantees the User permission to obtain a copy of this Work free of
charge to view, use, copy, modify, merge, lease, publish, sell, reproduce, and/or
distribute copies of this Work for any purpose. So long as the following
conditions are met:
1) Any and all versions of the Work must contain this license in its entirety.
2) If modified, the Derivative Work must clearly state that the work is a
modification of the original and any list of former and current contributors (if
any) must remain unchanged.
3) The name of the Licensor shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to
promote the sale, use, or other dealings with regards to the Work without prior
written authorization of the Licensor.
C) Warrantee
THERE IS NO WARANTEE OF ANY KIND FOR ANY WORKS RELEASED UNDER THIS LICENSE
EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED
BY APPLICABLE LAW OR EXPLICITLY AGREED TO IN WRITING WITH THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR
HOLDERS SHALL THE SAID COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY
DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
7. Re: ESL license
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <xotron at bluefrog.com>
Jul 22, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 23, 2005
> D. Newhall wrote:
>
> > Since we're on the topic of the Euphoria Standard Library, what license
> > are we going to release this under if any? I'm assuming that we're
> > going to use a completely free, open-source license that's probably not
> > copyleft or just release it into the public domain. Public domain would
> > probably be the best unless we want to maintain some control over
> > something (ie. "Modification is allowed only if the list of
> > contributors is not modified") or we want to explicitly declare no
> > warrantee on the library. Besides public domain I'd recommend the X11
> > or the 2- or 3-clause versions of the BSD license. If we want to make
> > this copyleft (meaning any modifications to the library source must
> > also be open source, generally a bad idea) I'd recommend a very weak
> > copyleft like the Mozilla license. Our other option would be to write
> > our own to cover explicitly what we want.
No one has the right to use another author's code in
an include file or program and then declare their code
to be under open-source license.
This has been done in the past by some users on this list.
A user can only declare code that they personaly have
written to be license in a given way.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.exw
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
8. Re: ESL license
<snip>
I still like Rob's licence for eu.ex:
http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=A&fromYear=9&toMonth=C&toYear=9&postedBy=Robert+Craig&keywords=%2Aanything%2A
Pete
9. Re: ESL license
Bernie Ryan wrote:
>> D. Newhall wrote:
>>
>>> Since we're on the topic of the Euphoria Standard Library, what license
>>> are we going to release this under if any? I'm assuming that we're
>>> going to use a completely free, open-source license that's probably not
>>> copyleft or just release it into the public domain. Public domain would
>>> probably be the best unless we want to maintain some control over
>>> something (ie. "Modification is allowed only if the list of
>>> contributors is not modified") or we want to explicitly declare no
>>> warrantee on the library. Besides public domain I'd recommend the X11
>>> or the 2- or 3-clause versions of the BSD license. If we want to make
>>> this copyleft (meaning any modifications to the library source must
>>> also be open source, generally a bad idea) I'd recommend a very weak
>>> copyleft like the Mozilla license. Our other option would be to write
>>> our own to cover explicitly what we want.
>
>
> No one has the right to use another author's code in
> an include file or program and then declare their code
> to be under open-source license.
>
> This has been done in the past by some users on this list.
That's not OK, of course.
For me it's no doubt that we should respect other author's licenses.
> A user can only declare code that they personaly have
> written to be license in a given way.
What about using other code, which is "Public Domain", or say which is
contained in EUforum posts?
( E.g. Ricardo and Derek had posted some neat code on this list, which
I would like to see in ESL. )
Regards,
Juergen
10. Re: ESL license
Pete Lomax wrote:
> <snip>
> I still like Rob's licence for eu.ex:
>
> http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=A&fromYear=9&toMonth=C&toYear=9&postedBy=Robert+Craig&keywords=%2Aanything%2A
As far as I see, this is in one sentence:
"Everybody is allowed to do with it what s/he ants."
Isn't it somewhat risky not even to diclaim any warranty?
Regards,
Juergen
11. Re: ESL license
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
>
> >> D. Newhall wrote:
> >>
> >>> Since we're on the topic of the Euphoria Standard Library, what license
> >>> are we going to release this under if any? I'm assuming that we're
> >>> going to use a completely free, open-source license that's probably not
> >>> copyleft or just release it into the public domain. Public domain would
> >>> probably be the best unless we want to maintain some control over
> >>> something (ie. "Modification is allowed only if the list of
> >>> contributors is not modified") or we want to explicitly declare no
> >>> warrantee on the library. Besides public domain I'd recommend the X11
> >>> or the 2- or 3-clause versions of the BSD license. If we want to make
> >>> this copyleft (meaning any modifications to the library source must
> >>> also be open source, generally a bad idea) I'd recommend a very weak
> >>> copyleft like the Mozilla license. Our other option would be to write
> >>> our own to cover explicitly what we want.
> >
> >
> > No one has the right to use another author's code in
> > an include file or program and then declare their code
> > to be under open-source license.
> >
> > This has been done in the past by some users on this list.
>
> That's not OK, of course.
> For me it's no doubt that we should respect other author's licenses.
>
> > A user can only declare code that they personaly have
> > written to be license in a given way.
>
> What about using other code, which is "Public Domain", or say which is
> contained in EUforum posts?
> ( E.g. Ricardo and Derek had posted some neat code on this list, which
> I would like to see in ESL. )
Technically, unless they say that their code is public domain we need to get
permission from them to use it since the Berne Convention states that everything
created by a person in coutries that agreed to the Convention is automatically
copyrighted by them. Luckily, Ricardo has put genfunc.e in the public domain.
Also, I think that we should put the Library itself into the public domain with
a statement that reiterates that there's no warranty and a request that you give
credit to the project and/or its contributors if you use code from it in your
project.
12. Re: ESL license
Juergen Luethje wrote:
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > I still like Rob's licence for eu.ex:
> > <a
> > href="http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=A&fromYear=9&toMonth=C&toYear=9&postedBy=Robert+Craig&keywords=%2Aanything%2A">http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=A&fromYear=9&toMonth=C&toYear=9&postedBy=Robert+Craig&keywords=%2Aanything%2A</a>
>
> As far as I see, this is in one sentence:
> "Everybody is allowed to do with it what s/he ants."
>
> Isn't it somewhat risky not even to diclaim any warranty?
Not necessarily because by putting it in the public domain you are implicitly
stating that you are not responsible for it hence no warranty. If Rob wants to
explicitly state that he will provide a warranty he can but until then there's no
warranty legally since as public domain no single person is responsible for it
just the public.
13. Re: ESL license
D. Newhall wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> I also prefer a weak license. I'd like to have two points included:
>>
>> 1) We explicitly declare no warrantee on the library.
>> 2) It should be clearly documented who wrote what. I.e. if someone
>> makes changes to ESL without talking to the group of 'official'
>> contributors, it must be documented that
>> a) this person didn't write the original code
>> b) the 'official' contributors didn't write the new code
>
> Here's a quick draft of a potential licnese I wrote up at work. The
> idea is that it should maintain the points above yet also not interfere
> with closed source program interfacing with it nor GPLed programs.
[snipped the draft]
It's here now:
http://home.arcor.de/luethje/esl/license.htm
Regards,
Juergen
14. Re: ESL license
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de>
Jul 24, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 25, 2005
D. Newhall wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
<snip>
>> What about using other code, which is "Public Domain", or say which is
>> contained in EUforum posts?
>> ( E.g. Ricardo and Derek had posted some neat code on this list, which
>> I would like to see in ESL. )
>
> Technically, unless they say that their code is public domain we need
> to get permission from them to use it since the Berne Convention states
> that everything created by a person in coutries that agreed to the
> Convention is automatically copyrighted by them. Luckily, Ricardo has
> put genfunc.e in the public domain.
And there is also a chance to get permission from Derek (P.).
Thanks for your interesting explanations (also in the other post) about
license questions.
> Also, I think that we should put the Library itself into the public
> domain with a statement that reiterates that there's no warranty and a
> request that you give credit to the project and/or its contributors if
> you use code from it in your project.
The more I think about it, the more I think it actually should be Public
Domain.
Regards,
Juergen
15. Re: ESL license
- Posted by Derek Parnell <ddparnell at bigpond.com>
Jul 24, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 25, 2005
Juergen Luethje wrote:
> And there is also a chance to get permission from Derek (P.).
Unless there is already a licence note in the source code files, the rest of my
contributions are public domain. Win32lib (ALL its files) are covered by a
licence in the win32lib.ew file. That licence is basically the ZLib licence.
And I quote ...
--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
-- Software ID: win32lib
-- Version: 0.60.6 19/September/2004
-- Copyright: (c) 2000 /"David Cuny" and friends
-- All rights reserved.
-- Licence:
-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty.
-- 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, and to 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.
-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement in the product's
-- documenation and binary are required.
-- 3. Altered source versions, 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 Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
16. Re: ESL license
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Jul 24, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 25, 2005
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:21:55 -0700, Derek Parnell
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>And I quote ...
>
>--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
>-- Software ID: win32lib
>-- Version: 0.60.6 19/September/2004
>-- Copyright: (c) 2000 /"David Cuny" and friends
>-- All rights reserved.
>-- Licence:
>-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty.
>-- 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, and to 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.
>-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement in the product's
>-- documenation and binary are required.
>-- 3. Altered source versions, 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------------------------*
I've always felt oddly ill at ease with 3 c). Maybe it should say:
include this notice, unaltered, preceded by "Based on:"?
2. might also have (unless this source is shipped unaltered with the
product, or won't work without a separate download of this source).
Just my thoughts, nothing serious,
Pete
PS I also think that the ESL, as a "carefully selected collection of
snippets of code from various authors" would be unfair to *require*
acknowledgement in the documentation and binaries that use it, as it
is frankly too difficult to compile a complete and honest list of all
those that may have originally contributed lines of code. Such
acknowledgement should instead be "appreciated but not required".
Again, that is just my personal opinion, though.
17. Re: ESL license
Pete Lomax wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:21:55 -0700, Derek Parnell
> <guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>
> >And I quote ...
> >
> >--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
> >-- Software ID: win32lib
> >-- Version: 0.60.6 19/September/2004
> >-- Copyright: (c) 2000 /"David Cuny" and friends
> >-- All rights reserved.
> >-- Licence:
> >-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
> >warranty.
> >-- 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, and to 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.
> >-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement in the product's
> >-- documenation and binary are required.
> >-- 3. Altered source versions, 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------------------------*
>
> I've always felt oddly ill at ease with 3 c). Maybe it should say:
> include this notice, unaltered, preceded by "Based on:"?
That is how I envisaged it too, but I didn't want to stipulate *how* is was to
be included, just that it needed to be there somewhere. The reason is to ensure
that third-derivitive works are fully aware of the original licence, and to
highlight the original licence so that it can't itself be misrepresented.
> 2. might also have (unless this source is shipped unaltered with the
> product, or won't work without a separate download of this source).
I'm don't follow you. Want do you mean here?
> Just my thoughts, nothing serious,
> Pete
> PS I also think that the ESL, as a "carefully selected collection of
> snippets of code from various authors" would be unfair to *require*
> acknowledgement in the documentation and binaries that use it, as it
> is frankly too difficult to compile a complete and honest list of all
> those that may have originally contributed lines of code. Such
> acknowledgement should instead be "appreciated but not required".
> Again, that is just my personal opinion, though.
I was not thinking that each and every individual be acknowledged. As you can
see from Win32lib, only David Cuny is explicitly named. In fact, my name only
appears once in the source files and then only as a part of its history. In the
change log, I've tried to name contributors but that is not a part of the
licence.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
