[M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership

[Jay K]

I find dual licensing confusing and I sympathize with the OpenBSD preference for licensing simplicity.

I also do wonder when I copy/paste/edit, if I must keep the DEC license.
I also wonder if we or anyone can relicense the DEC stuff, i.e. to be BSD licensed. I fear not.

 - Jay

> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:50:45 -0400
> From: hendrik at topoi.pooq.com
> To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 07:55:09PM +0000, Jay K wrote:
> > Use a "BSD" or "MIT" license.
> 
> I believe those don't place restrictions on what other code you can 
> link with.
> 
>  Maybe LGPL.
> 
> LGPL does place some restrictions on linking, but they're not as
> severe as GPL.
> 
> > Don't use Apache 2.0 or Mozilla.
> 
> "Public domain" might seem to be an option, except that
> 
> (1) It doesn't count as a license; instead, it means tht no license is 
> needed,
> 
> and
> 
> (2) Some countries in the world don't recognise it, leaving your users 
> there in legal limbo.
> 
> > 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.
> > Best is modern BSD, which some years ago dropped a clause from the old BSD license.
> > See OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.
> 
> For an introduction to dual-licensing, please see the Wikipedia 
> article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
> Especially the section on License Compatibility, which is our concern 
> here.
> 
> > 
> >  - Jay
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------
> > > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:36:21 -0500
> > > From: rodney_bates at lcwb.coop
> > > To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > Subject: Re: [M3devel] Licenses and copyright ownership
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/16/2013 02:11 PM, Tony Hosking wrote:
> > >> I think GPL is inherently incompatible with the original DEC/SRC license.
> > >
> > > So what do you propose instead?
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Antony Hosking | Associate Professor | Computer Science | Purdue University
> > >> 305 N. University Street | West Lafayette | IN 47907 | USA
> > >> Mobile +1 765 427 5484
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Oct 16, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "Rodney M. Bates" <rodney_bates at lcwb.coop> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I have checked in a few written-from-scratch source files without copyright/license
> > >>> notices recently. I plan to fix this, but wonder if there is a consensus about
> > >>> the choices here. We already have a hodge-podge of copyright owners and licenses
> > >>> in the Modula-3 repository. That may be difficult or impossible to fix, but I
> > >>> would like to move things in the right direction when adding all-new code.
> > >>>
> > >>> I checked in some earlier ones naming myself as owner and GPL as license.
> > >>> But I recall reading some hints on this list suggesting that people felt
> > >>> that the GPL was not a good idea here.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, is there any organization that would be good to take ownership where
> > >>> possible, in order to get Modula-3 more consistent in this regard?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > 		 	   		  
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20131017/2219b231/attachment-0002.html>