Re: My View on the License issues (PD only..here's why)
Al Getz wrote:
>
> Hello again,
>
> In this case
> there has already been a precedence set...code has already been
> contributed with the authors setting their own standards for
> how the code THEY submit should be used.
>
> I see no reason why this should be changed, and so if someone
> wants to contribute their own interpreter, for example,
> they should be able to specify their own requirements just
> as in the past with other contributed code.
>
> Most people only ask that their name be mentioned in the
> derived works anyway. If others want to ask for more,
> then they have to realize that their code *may* not be used
> at all, for anything. If they dont ask for more, then they
> have to realize that their code may be used as part of a
> project that makes money and they dont get any of it, but
> then how would the profit be divided anyway, especially if
> there were more than one contributor? That would get hairy.
>
> Public domain is the only way to go, and if contributors
> want to post their more specific demands on *their* contributions
> then let them do so. If they want to modify the source and
> contribute that, then let *them* decide what they will allow
> on their code, as has always been done in the past.
> This gives the secondary author the right to choose any licence
> they care to, and puts no demand on Open Eu. If they dont want
> *their* code to be purely public domain, then they can specify
> whatever they want. If they dont want to release it, then
> they wont anyway.
>
> This of course means that Open Eu must be released with the
> free'est licence possible, so that no one has any reason
> not to use it!
>
> I, however, also believe that it should be mandatory to have to
> mention in an about box and in the doc's that Open Eu was used
> either all or in part to build the project.
>
> Also, if anyone thinks ALL software is some day going to magically
> become free then all i ask is for proof: get Microsoft to start
> giving away ALL of their software for free. When that happens,
> i will probably agree to give all my software away for free
> AND ALSO with the requirement that anything they use it for
> must be free also.
That is actually a pretty good argument for having the code be public domain.
However, the code could be X11 licensed with almost the same effect (the X11
license just also explicitly tells you your rights to the code and protects the
original creator against legal harm) or even 3-clause BSD (same as the X11
license except you can't use the author's name in advertisements). The primary
argument against public domain is that it removes Rob's distinction as creator of
the code and people feel that that is unfair to his hard work.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
