OpenEuphoria

Re: ESL license

• Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de> Jul 24, 2005
• 513 views

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