Best, free'ist - open source licence model?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave Doe, Nov 17, 2010.

  1. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    What's the best.

    Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    proprietory code (to produce an overall product).

    I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.

    The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    proprietory code.


    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 17, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave Doe

    Malcolm Guest

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:07:58 +1300
    Dave Doe <> wrote:

    > What's the best.
    >
    > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still
    > around)? The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular
    > combining with proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >
    > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >
    > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible
    > with the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they
    > want - regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with
    > other proprietory code.
    >

    Hi
    Is "WTFPL - Do What The F@#k You Want To Public License"
    Check out libcaca...

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.32.24-0.2-default
    up 4 days 14:28, 2 users, load average: 0.15, 0.15, 0.10
    GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 260.19.21
     
    Malcolm, Nov 17, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Doe

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 19:07:58 +1300, Dave Doe wrote:

    > What's the best.
    >
    > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >
    > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >
    > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > proprietory code.


    The GPL is the best license for preserving the freedom of your code.
    Users can do what they like with it provided they don't combine it with
    code under a different license.

    If you want to allow other developers to take your code and use it as if
    their it is their own for their own profit then release it under the BSD
    license. :)


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Nov 17, 2010
    #3
  4. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    mer, whoisthis says...
    >
    > In article <-september.org>,
    > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >
    > > What's the best.
    > >
    > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    > >
    > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    > >
    > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > > proprietory code.

    >
    > BSD.


    Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
    wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.

    So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.

    But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 17, 2010
    #4
  5. Dave Doe

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:05:54 +1300, whoisthis wrote:

    > In article <-september.org>,
    > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> mer, whoisthis says...
    >> >
    >> > In article <-september.org>,
    >> > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > What's the best.
    >> > >
    >> > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still
    >> > > around)? The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular
    >> > > combining with proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >> > >
    >> > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >> > >
    >> > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible
    >> > > with the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they
    >> > > want - regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with
    >> > > other proprietory code.
    >> >
    >> > BSD.

    >>
    >> Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
    >> wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
    >>
    >> So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
    >>
    >> But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.

    >
    > Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
    > commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
    > others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can. OSX is built on top
    > of BSD, and I think you will find that WebKit (the engine behind a lot
    > of web browsers and mobile web browsers) is also BSD based for some of
    > it.


    Of course, why doesn't he just release it into the public domain?


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Nov 17, 2010
    #5
  6. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    mer, whoisthis says...
    >
    > In article <-september.org>,
    > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > mer, whoisthis says...
    > > >
    > > > In article <-september.org>,
    > > > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > What's the best.
    > > > >
    > > > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > > > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > > > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    > > > >
    > > > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    > > > >
    > > > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > > > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > > > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > > > > proprietory code.
    > > >
    > > > BSD.

    > >
    > > Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
    > > wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
    > >
    > > So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
    > >
    > > But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.

    >
    > Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
    > commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
    > others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can.
    > OSX is built on top of BSD, and I think you will find that WebKit (the
    > engine behind a lot of web browsers and mobile web browsers) is also BSD
    > based for some of it.


    Thank you mate, I appreciate your comments. I got onto the MIT license
    thing when I looked at the license used in the CMS I'm using. Then I
    dug into the MIT license itself on Wikipedia...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_licence

    and then this also...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses

    And so (so far) I've written up the new webpage thus...
    http://www.adrock.com/Products/DelphiComponents.aspx

    I'm still quite happy to change it! :)

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 17, 2010
    #6
  7. Dave Doe

    victor Guest

    On 17/11/2010 7:07 p.m., Dave Doe wrote:
    > What's the best.
    >
    > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >
    > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >
    > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > proprietory code.
    >
    >

    It depends what your objective is and whether you want it to be able to
    be distributed within the policies of others.

    Here's a good reference
    http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
    and
    http://opensource.org/licenses/category
     
    victor, Nov 17, 2010
    #7
  8. Dave Doe

    Sweetpea Guest

    On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 07:42:47 +1300, whoisthis wrote:

    >> Of course, why doesn't he just release it into the public domain?

    >
    > he was asking for options, that is simply another.


    It's probably the license that gives the greatest freedom of all.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Sweetpea, Nov 18, 2010
    #8
  9. Dave Doe

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > What's the best.
    >
    > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >
    > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >
    > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > proprietory code.
    >
    >

    You are confused.

    Have you read the GPL? It is in plain English. The word propriety does not
    appear in it.

    Have you read the BSD? Mr Apple has.

    Get back to basics, what do *you* believe in? Take it from there.
     
    Gordon, Nov 19, 2010
    #9
  10. Dave Doe

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-11-17, whoisthis <> wrote:
    > In article <-september.org>,
    > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> mer, whoisthis says...
    >> >
    >> > In article <-september.org>,
    >> > Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > What's the best.
    >> > >
    >> > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    >> > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    >> > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    >> > >
    >> > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    >> > >
    >> > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    >> > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    >> > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    >> > > proprietory code.
    >> >
    >> > BSD.

    >>
    >> Thanks. I've had a looksee on Wikipedia at the BSD - however the MIT
    >> wiki.p. entry seems to indicate that the MIT licence is more open.
    >>
    >> So at this stage I'm still going with the MIT licence.
    >>
    >> But if you think I'm wrong, do say so (and why). Thanks.

    >
    > Because people can do what they want with it, including using it in
    > commercial software and not being forced to hand over their work to
    > others, and yet if they choose to do so, they can.


    I rest my case.

    If you get free code, then everything you build on that should be free, so
    that others can build upon it further.

    Still your choice.
     
    Gordon, Nov 19, 2010
    #10
  11. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>, ,
    Gordon says...
    >
    > On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > > What's the best.
    > >
    > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    > >
    > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    > >
    > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > > proprietory code.
    > >
    > >

    > You are confused.


    I don't think so. Perhaps our customers are? Here's just one of
    several complaints I've had about our GPL licensing from the past...

    "
    > OK, it's my understanding that if I changed the licencing to MPL -
    > you'd be sweet.


    I would. But please understand that I'm not trying to force the issue.
    I just wanted to raise the point that you could be locking out a lot of
    other developers from using your components. Specifically those who
    don't write under the GPL.

    Here is a quick section, from the mpl-faq file, I'd like to highlight:
    Q: May I combine MPLed code and GPL-licensed code in the same binary?

    A: No, unless the MPLed code is also available under the GPL - for
    example using the mozilla.org tri-license. This is because the MPL
    imposes additional restrictions over and above those imposed by the GPL,
    which makes it incompatible with section 6 of GPL version 2, and the
    corresponding section in any later versions.

    That is why I was only suggesting the Multiple licensing. If you
    release the code under both the MPL and the GPL it would then allow the
    developers to choose which license they wanted to use you could reach an
    even broader range of people. That has it's good and bad points, I
    know, but it's only a suggestion. Another license that I generally
    favor is the BSD license.
    It's probably one of the least restrictive licenses, but it also has it
    pros and cons depending on what your trying to do.

    I appreciate the fact that you've even taken the time to address this
    issue with me. Even if you don't choose to change your licensing it's
    refreshing to talk with someone without some kind of licensing prejudice
    getting in the way.

    The original reason I wrote you was because I noticed this thread on the
    CodeGear nntp server: Adrock DateTime Suite Components now under GPL!
    it's in the thirdpartytools.general group.
    "

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 19, 2010
    #11
  12. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <-september.org>,
    , Dave Doe says...
    >
    > In article <>, ,
    > Gordon says...
    > >
    > > On 2010-11-17, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    > > > What's the best.
    > > >
    > > > Originally, I was advised to use the MPL licence (is that still around)?
    > > > The GPL model seems too restrictive - in particular combining with
    > > > proprietory code (to produce an overall product).
    > > >
    > > > I since been told that the MIT licencing model may be best.
    > > >
    > > > The aim is to essentially let the end-user be as free as possible with
    > > > the code - do whatever they want with it, use it anyway they want -
    > > > regardless of whether they are using it in conjunction with other
    > > > proprietory code.
    > > >
    > > >

    > > You are confused.

    >
    > I don't think so. Perhaps our customers are? Here's just one of
    > several complaints I've had about our GPL licensing from the past...
    >
    > "
    > > OK, it's my understanding that if I changed the licencing to MPL -
    > > you'd be sweet.

    >
    > I would. But please understand that I'm not trying to force the issue.
    > I just wanted to raise the point that you could be locking out a lot of
    > other developers from using your components. Specifically those who
    > don't write under the GPL.
    >
    > Here is a quick section, from the mpl-faq file, I'd like to highlight:
    > Q: May I combine MPLed code and GPL-licensed code in the same binary?
    >
    > A: No, unless the MPLed code is also available under the GPL - for
    > example using the mozilla.org tri-license. This is because the MPL
    > imposes additional restrictions over and above those imposed by the GPL,
    > which makes it incompatible with section 6 of GPL version 2, and the
    > corresponding section in any later versions.
    >
    > That is why I was only suggesting the Multiple licensing. If you
    > release the code under both the MPL and the GPL it would then allow the
    > developers to choose which license they wanted to use you could reach an
    > even broader range of people. That has it's good and bad points, I
    > know, but it's only a suggestion. Another license that I generally
    > favor is the BSD license.
    > It's probably one of the least restrictive licenses, but it also has it
    > pros and cons depending on what your trying to do.
    >
    > I appreciate the fact that you've even taken the time to address this
    > issue with me. Even if you don't choose to change your licensing it's
    > refreshing to talk with someone without some kind of licensing prejudice
    > getting in the way.
    >
    > The original reason I wrote you was because I noticed this thread on the
    > CodeGear nntp server: Adrock DateTime Suite Components now under GPL!
    > it's in the thirdpartytools.general group.
    > "


    I guess I should add Gordon, that, at the end-of-the-day - I just don't
    want anymore whinging about it! :)

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 19, 2010
    #12
  13. Dave Doe

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2010-11-17 Dave Doe <>:
    > What's the best.


    Copyright law.
     
    Gunnar Gren, Nov 21, 2010
    #13
  14. Dave Doe

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <4ce8b40b$0$993$4all.se>,
    lid, Gunnar Gren says...
    >
    > 2010-11-17 Dave Doe <>:
    > > What's the best.

    >
    > Copyright law.


    Wakey wakey

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Nov 21, 2010
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?cnVzc193aWxs?=

    exchanging 32bit licence to 64bit licence problem

    =?Utf-8?B?cnVzc193aWxs?=, May 10, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,284
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    May 12, 2005
  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Open-Source Licence Bites The Dust

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 27, 2009
  3. Mike Easter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    862
    Mike Easter
    May 12, 2010
  4. richard
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,183
    Fred Tehbot
    May 19, 2010
  5. VanguardLH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    524
    VanguardLH
    May 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page