<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>I find dual licensing confusing and I sympathize with the OpenBSD preference for licensing simplicity.<br><br>I also do wonder when I copy/paste/edit, if I must keep the DEC license.<br>I also wonder if we or anyone can relicense the DEC stuff, i.e. to be BSD licensed. I fear not.<br><br> - Jay<br><br><div>> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:50:45 -0400<br>> From: hendrik@topoi.pooq.com<br>> To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership<br>> <br>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 07:55:09PM +0000, Jay K wrote:<br>> > Use a "BSD" or "MIT" license.<br>> <br>> I believe those don't place restrictions on what other code you can <br>> link with.<br>> <br>> Maybe LGPL.<br>> <br>> LGPL does place some restrictions on linking, but they're not as<br>> severe as GPL.<br>> <br>> > Don't use Apache 2.0 or Mozilla.<br>> <br>> "Public domain" might seem to be an option, except that<br>> <br>> (1) It doesn't count as a license; instead, it means tht no license is <br>> needed,<br>> <br>> and<br>> <br>> (2) Some countries in the world don't recognise it, leaving your users <br>> there in legal limbo.<br>> <br>> > Don't make up your own. OpenBSD folks reject such things as not worth the (lawyer) time to understand.> OpenBSD folks reject the Apache 2.0 license for some reaosn -- maybe the previous, it is long and custom.<br>> > Best is modern BSD, which some years ago dropped a clause from the old BSD license.<br>> > See OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.<br>> <br>> For an introduction to dual-licensing, please see the Wikipedia <br>> article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing<br>> Especially the section on License Compatibility, which is our concern <br>> here.<br>> <br>> > <br>> > - Jay<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > ----------------------------------------<br>> > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:36:21 -0500<br>> > > From: rodney_bates@lcwb.coop<br>> > > To: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> > > Subject: Re: [M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > On 10/16/2013 02:11 PM, Tony Hosking wrote:<br>> > >> I think GPL is inherently incompatible with the original DEC/SRC license.<br>> > ><br>> > > So what do you propose instead?<br>> > ><br>> > >><br>> > >> Antony Hosking | Associate Professor | Computer Science | Purdue University<br>> > >> 305 N. University Street | West Lafayette | IN 47907 | USA<br>> > >> Mobile +1 765 427 5484<br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "Rodney M. Bates" <rodney_bates@lcwb.coop> wrote:<br>> > >><br>> > >>> I have checked in a few written-from-scratch source files without copyright/license<br>> > >>> notices recently. I plan to fix this, but wonder if there is a consensus about<br>> > >>> the choices here. We already have a hodge-podge of copyright owners and licenses<br>> > >>> in the Modula-3 repository. That may be difficult or impossible to fix, but I<br>> > >>> would like to move things in the right direction when adding all-new code.<br>> > >>><br>> > >>> I checked in some earlier ones naming myself as owner and GPL as license.<br>> > >>> But I recall reading some hints on this list suggesting that people felt<br>> > >>> that the GPL was not a good idea here.<br>> > >>><br>> > >>> Also, is there any organization that would be good to take ownership where<br>> > >>> possible, in order to get Modula-3 more consistent in this regard?<br>> > >>><br>> > >>><br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > > <br></div> </div></body>
</html>