FSF On How To Choose a License 210
ciaran_o_riordan writes "FSF have put together their license recommendations, beyond just their own licenses, for software, documentation, and other works: 'People often ask us what license we recommend they use for their project. We've written about this publicly before, but the information has been scattered around between different essays, FAQ entries, and license commentaries. This article collects all that information into a single source, to make it easier for people to follow and refer back to. The recommendations below are focused on licensing a work that you create — whether that's a modification of an existing work, or a new original work.'"
On the topic of choosing a CC license: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."
I find this advice very, very bad. This is where FSF's mentality goes so very wrong, and where they really don't seem to stand for freedom in any sense at all. Remember: freedom is a two-way concept, not a one-way concept as the FSF gladly would want it to be. "Of course we're all about open and free licenses, as long as you choose one of ours."
Re:On the topic of choosing a CC license: (Score:5, Informative)
"Please don't use it for software ..., since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL."
A little birdie dumped a codebase on my head recently and one of the many bugfixes I had to do before I could even legally distribute the thing was to rip out some CC-BY-SA code and replace it with something GPL-compatible.
I have no doubt in my mind that whoever chose the CC license for that code wasn't thinking. Or at least not that much. They wanted to open the code? Great. They wanted to copyleft it? Marvelous as well. A copyleft license like the GPL probably would have been fine for them. That's why we need more simplistic documents like the one that the FSF created.
I do have some concerns about the GFDL and the CC licenses for documentation. On the one hand I feel that CC-BY-SA doesn't have some of the legacy non-free baggage mechanisms that you can find in the GFDL. On the other hand I have personally run into problems where documentation for projects includes non-trivial code examples, and the Benton Fraser in me has dutifully tried to get specific permission or dual-licensing on the code examples so that I can use them in a program.
I hope that, just as there has been work to make the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0 licenses compatible, we'll see future work to make some of the CC licenses more compatible with permissive and/or copyleft code licenses. Remember that the FSF endorsed that relicensing escape-clause for Wikipedia and some other sites a little while ago, so it seems plausible that there might be some hope for reconciliation and cooperation in the future. At least we can all hope.
Re:On the topic of choosing a CC license: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: why not use both licenses? (Score:2)
Why don't you simply use both licenses?
I.e. the documentation is CC-BY-SA as a whole, however code examples fall under the GPLv3 license and that license applies to any use of them within actual software products.
This still allows the documentation to be used verbatim, rewritten, reformatted, translated, etc. etc., including the code examples, under CC-BY-SA, while protecting the use of the code under GPLv3's terms.
Mind you, I'm not sure how code examples in documentation could really fall under GPLv3. Say
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it isn't. It's a different licence because the GPL is not appropriate for documentation. If it were GPL compatible, there would be no need for it as you could just use the GPL.
Re: (Score:2)
This Is Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice how they never mentioned once the BSD license, arguably the most free license there is in the world.
The whole premise of this exercise is ridiculous.
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they?
If you want "true freedom", put your software in the public domain.
If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want BSD levels of freedom, the Apache license is better.
Except for it's incompatibility with GPLv2 which is still far more prevelant in use than GPLv3 especially with legacy code?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Linux, I'm not sure that that's true.
Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.
Most of the GPLv2 code I've seen is actually "GPLv2 or any later version", so it can be upgraded to GPLv3.
Yes, it could be but if it isn't Apache 2.0 isn't going to be compatible. And I doubt seriously that most projects are going to upgrade to GPLv3 for an asinine reason like accepting someone's contribution using the APL as opposed to just having the contributor use the GPLv2 which makes things far easier. Secondly, my statement had nothing to do with saying stuff is GPLv2 only.
Can you name this vast amount? (Score:2)
Not sure what it is true? There are vast amounts of code that are GPLv2 beyond the Linux kernel.
Other than Linux and BusyBox, can you name some well-known examples? And that can easily be solved with an Apache 2/GPLv2 dual license.
BSD is safer than public domain (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in the US it is not out of the question to be sued for your public domain program. The BSD license has appropriate disclaimers of liability that protect the developer from many kinds of lawsuits. Because a lawsuit is likely to bankrupt you whether you are guilty or not, this is an important consideration.
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
But it is not ridiculous anyway. It details what they think about how software should be licensed in order to further their goals.
Now your goals may be different to their goals, so the advice doesn't fit your goals. So what? You may not share the goals, but the article isn't about the goals, but how to reach them. It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.
Of course you can argue whether their goals are right. But that's a different topic, unrelated to the question how to reach them.
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
Simplicity. OpenBSD rejects Apache 2.0 licensed code from the base system, because the license is so complex that you can't expect developers without legal training to understand it. I've read the Apache 2.0 license a few times, and I'm still not sure I could answer with 100% certainty what I can and can't do with the code.
Perhaps more importantly, the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code. This means that you can not mix code under these two licenses in the same codebase. To give a concrete example of when this has been a problem for me, I wanted to index PDFs using code derived from Poppler (derived from xpdf, GPLv2) and Apache Lucene (Apache 2) - this was not possible without jumping through hoops, such as separating the code into two independent programs that could be used together. If either piece of code had been BSDL, then this would have been much easier.
The interaction between the GPL and APSL code here made it harder for me to write Free Software. In the end, I just bumped that project down my to-do list and hacked on BSDL stuff instead.
It would be ridiculous if the advice obviously did not further their(!) goals. But it is totally irrelevant if they further your goals (except if your goals coincide with theirs). If you don't share their goals, then this article is not for you.
TFA purports to be advice. Advice should be telling people how to reach their goals, not yours. If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone's goals don't agree with yours, then the polite thing to do is refuse to give them advice, not give them bad advice.
So the FSF should not put up a web page explaining which licenses they recommend and why, because someone on the Internet might disagree? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
So the FSF should not put up a web page explaining which licenses they recommend and why, because someone on the Internet might disagree? Seriously?
No, they should title it something other than "How to choose a license for your own work." Perhaps "What license the FSF thinks you should choose for your work."
Re: (Score:3)
Are there people going to the FSF web site for advice on choosing a software license, who would expect to receive the opinion of than the FSF's?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and you should have said in that post "I, samkass, think they should title it something other (...)" instead of just saying "they should (...)". People might get confused!
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
the Apache 2.0 license is incompatible with GPLv2 code.
I think they see that as a feature, not a bug. The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).
Uncontactable author (Score:2)
The FSF really wants everyone to upgrade to GPLv3 (which is also incompatible with GPLv2).
Good luck with that if one contributor to your GPLv2-only project disagrees with the changes in the GPLv3 or simply has since become uncontactable.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the advantage of the BSD license over the Apache license (which they did mention)?
Compatibility with the GPLv2 which still makes up the vast majority of FOSS code especially things like the Linux kernel.
They do mention permissive licences: Apache (Score:3)
If you want a permissive licence, use the Apache 2.0 licence.
FSF's doc says this.
I concur. Apache serves the purpose that permissive licences can serve, plus it contains patent protections:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License [swpat.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and the FSF recommends the Apache 2.0 because of a desire to push people to move to GPLv3 since Apache 2.0 is incompatible with the GPLv2. Most people don't find picking a license that is incompatible with vast amounts of code under the GPLv2 to be a good recommendation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article shouldn't be titled "FSF On How To Choose a License" but rather "FSF On How To Choose the GPL License".
Original BSD license should not be used (Score:2)
The FSF points out that the use of the (original) BSD license is not advisable [gnu.org] because of the existence of two version of it: the original with the advertising clause, and the modified without it. Because the modified version is equivalent to the MIT (or X11) license, you should use the MIT license instead to avoid confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't mention BSD for a fairly simple reason: BSD licenses weren't designed to interact well with GPL licenses, and thus tend not to. If you are liable to end up needing software with different licenses to interact, and some of it is using a FSF license (as is likely if you are going to the FSF for advice in the first place), then using a BSDish license is liable to complicate things.
They have another page which gets into details of compatibily of various licenses [gnu.org].
If you aren't at all interested in
Re: (Score:2)
What makes for a free society? One where each of us is free to murder and imprison each other, or one where the only restriction on your personal freedom is that you may not restrict the freedom of others?
I prefer the latter social paradigm.
That's why I prefer GPL.
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Free for developers looking to make closed derivative works. Not free for society, other developers, and certianly not users.
Just because someone makes a closed fork, doesn't mean the original disappears. The original is still there and still free for users, still free for other developers, and society. Your statement is pure copyleft FUD.
If you want it to be "free," just go public domain it. GPL is about actually keeping software free, not providing a toolkit to proprietary developers.
The whole reason the BSD license exists is to explicitly provide protections to the original author that public domain doesn't explicitly provide, like indemnity to lack of fitness, warranty etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The fork however isn't free in most senses.
Or require contributors listed in ads, you are forgetting
Re: (Score:2)
And what will happen to the original project when everyone simply piggybacks off of it trying to make a quick buck instead of contributing to it in a way everyone can benefit from?
In other words, it becomes more widely used. There are, as usual, pros and cons for this sort of thing. For me, my personal coding efforts tend to be a lot weaker than when I'm doing it for work. I haven't gotten anything to the point where it's good enough to throw at the public. But if I did, I'd go for a lenient license in order to encourage use. As I see it, if greedy moochers are pilfering my public code, that's a lot better than no use at all.
You statement is that of a lazy developer who wont/can't write his own code and profit from it
On the other side of the coin, most of the good developers
Re: (Score:2)
The argument can be reversed in that a BSD developer is explicitely NOT lazy because he doesn't demand free source-handouts from all those that use his code.
On the other hand, GPL developers may be considered lazy because they do.
Obviously, both these and your arguments are completely senseless. It has nothing to do with being lazy and much more with (business) strategy and philosophical points of view.
FWIW, I've released code in both GPL and BSD licenses, amongst others, for various reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument can be reversed in that a BSD developer is explicitely NOT lazy because he doesn't demand free source-handouts from all those that use his code.
On the other hand, GPL developers may be considered lazy because they do.
No, they don't. Why do people keep saying this? The GPL does not force anyone to contribute code to the original project even if they distribute modified versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This Is Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
This (GPL vs BSD) is where the fork in the road is. It depends on whether you want your code to be widespread one or or widespread the other way. In the GPL case, your code won't be used in certain products where they can't open the whole thing. In the BSD case, it can be used everywhere, but there's no obligated to release source for what it gets added to. You have to decide, for code you create, which way you want it to go. I recently switched to BSD for my library code, and staying with GPL for complete programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at SQLite. It's used _everywhere_ these days. Their own [sqlite.org] list is only a small segment of it's pervasiveness. I'm a programmer for a large company, and I use it in internal software I develop as part of my job.
Has SQLite made the world a better place? Definitely.
Moreso than a GPL equivalent would have? Of course.
Have they got the full credit they deserve? Perhaps not.
Of course, BSD vs GPL is a matter of personal preference, but after all, how is using SQLite in a proprietary program any different from u
Re: (Score:2)
Have Linux and GCC made the world a better place? Definitely.
Moreso than the BSD equivalents would have? Of course.
If no other useful changes are made and it doesn't ease porting to less proprietary hardware there is no difference. Hence GPLv3 as the next step up in licensing options. It is still different on less proprietary hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen this argument before. It is true. Anybody, including a business, including Microsoft (oh noes!), can use your code 'as is', modify it, or incorporate it into their own code, and make the compiled results thereof available to anyone they see fit, without the requirement to also provide your source code when so requested, when you choose the BSD license.
But that means nothi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh? Where in the BSD license does it say that only developers looking to make closed derivative works may use it, modify it, or redistribute it? I'm pretty sure that the answer is "nowhere". You can do everything with BSD-licensed software that you can do with GPL-licensed software, regardless of whether you are a developer user, or society.
The difference is that people making derivat
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that people making derivative works of BSD-licensed software are not forced to contribute back to the project.
This is the key element in my mind and a good example of this is the TCP/IP stack that everyone uses. It's an elegant piece of code yet as a dev, I can modify the hell out of it and maybe improve it tremendously but I don't have to share those improvements with anyone else unlike GPL code, which requires me to share them.
It's this difference that makes the GPL better for the community yet for businesses, it makes more sense to go with the BSD.
Re: (Score:3)
GPL is not about keeping software free, it's about forcing future software to be like itself. You said it already, other licenses allow for "closed derivative works". Those derivative works in no way effect the free nature of the original software. All the GPL does is limit the freedoms on so-called free code, truly free software wouldn't care how derivative works were used, and they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Take a look at what Microsoft did with Kerebos. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00029523.htm [justice.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
One would presume that future versions of software are still software. With the presumption that the GPL is indeed your statement is tautologically false. If you are to argue that the mere keeping is making it non-free you will have to use less circular logic.
That is "all" that every legal framework trying to preserve certain freedoms does.
No BSD (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it's predictable that the FSF wouldn't be in favor of BSD-style licenses, but if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license. BSD is not mentioned anywhere in their guide...which is a shame. Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.
Re: (Score:2)
"The second is projects that implement free standards that are competing against proprietary standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do."
They don't spell it out, but they do imply that there is cases where BSD-style licenses is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
They intentionally glossed over the BSD license because it provides more freedom to developers and doesn't require copyright assignment to the FSF, period.
"more freedom" == the same nebulous debate that /. has every fortnight between a permissive license and the GPL.
And none of the licenses that they mentioned "require copyright assignment" to the FSF or any other entity. I can't think of a single FOSS license that specifies that in the license proper.
C'mon, Anonymous Troll, at least pick a fight that requires me to fire up more than a couple of brain cells.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. Five FSF licenses and the Apache license does not count for an overview of all the free software licenses out there. They intentionally glossed over the BSD license because it provides more freedom to developers and doesn't require copyright assignment to the FSF, period.
Nonsense. You don't need a copyright assignment to the FSF to license anything under any of the GNU licenses. You only need a copyright assignment if you want your code to become part of an official GNU project, that is, a project maintained by the FSF. Note that this doesn't even include creating a fork of such a project (e.g. making your own modified version of GCC). Only if you want the FSF to distribute your code as part of GNU, you have to assign. Distribute it yourself (or have someone else distribute
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I was just about to make my own post about how this is clearly biased in favor of FSF licenses.
BSD is one of the more popular open source licenses out there yet the FSF consistently either pretends it doesn't exist or tells people the GPL is better.
Re:No BSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Shock Horror: the FSF is biased on the FSF website in favour of FSF licences ...
In other News: the Pope is Catholic ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forgot Discordians, though that depends on his excommunicated/deexcommunicated status.
Re:No BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
if they're going to mention things like the Apache license, they should include the BSD license....Whether you agree with it or not, it's a valid license, and should be included in the decision tree for choosing a license.
I mean look at it this way: This is the FSF's cheat-sheet decision tree for people to choose a Free Software license. You could easily compare this document with that page that Creative Commons has to help people choose a Free Culture license.
Now I don't have (read: I'm too lazy to go look up the url right now) the CC page memorized, but last I remembered they only put a few of their CC licenses on there. There wasn't any CC0 listed, and I don't remember the CC-GPL or the Remix license (not sure if that latter license is even being promoted by them anymore).
If the FSF's target is people who don't geek out on the particular nuances of "distribute" vs "convey" in a FOSS license, then they aren't going to give someone a complete primer on all licenses. Remember that this document is designed as a tool for choosing a license, not working with existing licenses. Sure, if I had to educate a bunch of software developers about FOSS licenses I would probably start with the GPL, then move to BSD (3-clause, natch), MIT, Apache, and maybe sprinkle in some cautionary tales about weak or incompatible licenses. But that ain't the game here.
It's obvious why the FSF chose the Apache 2.0 license as their default permissive license
Sure, the new BSD and MIT licenses are shorter, but they don't offer developers and end-users the same kinds of structured protections that are available in the GPLv3 and Apache 2.0. And that's what the FSF is designed to promote.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's a broad overview (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow, that's a broad overview (Score:5, Insightful)
"Just to be clear, using BSD licensed code in a GPL'ed work is fine - re-licensing the whole file under a more restrictive license is not."
Actually, you're wrong. The BSD license allows anyone to come along and relicense the entire file/program or whatever, under any other license, so long as the conditions of the BSD license are followed. Which mainly come down to attribution.
The same 'freedom" which allows a propitiatory software developer (such as Microsoft) to take BSD licensed stuff and then say that others are not allowed to redistribute without their permission, is the same "freedom" which allows GPL advocates to take the same code and relicense under the GPL. Of course, if the attribution is done correctly there is nothing to stop you from going to the original source of the program and doing what you like.
Oh wait, relicensing BSD stuff is only OK when you can't see the source code for the end result, not when you can see the source code, but can't use it because of that nasty GPL virus! Oh the horror!
Re: (Score:2)
Also from TFA, in the same section: "To minimize the impact on others, show explicitly which parts of the work are under which license."
I'm pretty sure I read the whole length of the SFLC's paper about how to reuse permissive-licensed code under a copyleft license like the GPL, but I can't remember anything in there that showed how to indicate which parts of a file are under one license versus another.
Maybe they're suggesting that people just do it on a file-by-file basis, but that part seems mostly like a no-brainer (no?).
well, finally (Score:2)
Yet, FDL is still considered non-free! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yet, FDL is still considered non-free! (Score:4, Interesting)
The people from the FSF who I have talked to about this issue took the (suprising to me) stance that they don't consider documentation to be software, and don't believe that documentation should necessarily be free.
Re: (Score:2)
that said, most projects probably want its documentation to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
You can write a blogpost or whatever re-documenting the software, but if the original documentation isn't Free then you can't build on and improve it, just like you can't improve/modify software that isn't Free.
I really am surprised that the FSF appears to be taking this stance.
LGPL with affero clause (Score:2)
We're a developer group that is now writing a server library. We plan to use it for commercial projects by putting all the code into the library and creating a thin proprietary wrapper to keep clients happy.
It's a strategic move to use the LGPL, as if we used GPL then we'd have to sell proprietary licenses. Proprietary people would choose to either:
This way (by using LGPL) we
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
Then put your work in the public domain. After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users. In doing so they restrict the freedom of distributors. You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.
Re: (Score:2)
After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
"This sense" refers to "People could make changes to our library, use them in their commercial service and not make changes public.". BSD does not restrict freedom in this sense. The only restrictions are those 2,3 or 4 clauses listed on the license. The GPL tells you want you can do, the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the BSD licenses are not free 'cause they require you to attribute the original author/s and copy that long text all around the place. If you want real freedom you use the Do What the Fuck you Want License [wikipedia.org].
To quote:
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
You are defining freedom as anarchy. Anarchy does not ensure freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, so you didn't read the original post or the portion of it I quoted?
There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.
Software that copies itself into the output (Score:2)
There is just no reasonable definition of 'distribute' that includes 'offer a service that uses the software'.
Say a work of authorship ("the software") implements a service. If the service copies parts of the software into its output, use is distribution. Examples from a web service include any images, HTML templates, or JavaScript programs included in a page. The AGPL is intended for programs that are organized as a quine [wikipedia.org], where part of the service includes downloading the software as source code. The AGPL uses the exclusive right to prepare derivative works so that any copy in your possession must maintain the qu
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that is not totally correct. GPL and LGPL protects the copyright holder by forcing users, who make changes and redistribute the derivative work, to make the changes available to the original copyright holder and public at large. The side effect is that the forced disclosure of source code required by the GPL and LGPL benefits more people since it allows for forks and continuation of development even if the copyright holder no longer support
Re: (Score:2)
You can use GPL or LGPL software in any way that you want, and the user's rights are protected by the licence. The software is also protected from being made proprietary, so that users will always be free from the danger of a proprietary variant supplanting the original via "embrace, extend, extinguish". Freedom does not mean anarchy, anarchy does not provide freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP was talking about forcing users to publish internal (ie not re-distributed) changes if they offer a web service that uses the software.
Does no one even read the posts they are replying to anymore?
Excellent! (Score:2)
Why I don't like Creative Commons (Score:3)
There are a few reasons why I don't like Creative Commons, one of which is that they encourage people not to read the actual license text (just to read the "human readable summary"). But have a look at some of the restrictions one day. A quotes from Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported [creativecommons.org]:
Bet you didn't know that was in there (no actual bet intended).
Moreover, most of the CC licenses hardly the easiest of licenses to read, too full of legalese. And which license? There are umpteen different ones, depending on which jurisdiction you want to cover. Not to mention the various versions (Flickr only let's you use version 2.0 licenses, rather than the latest 3.0 versions). Too much choice, leads to confusion.
Personally, what I want is a simple, short, easy to understand, weak copyleft (like Lesser GPL) for non-software. Does anyone know of a license like that?
Re: (Score:2)
What so you think that a licence that people pick so that anyone can use it but they get credit, should allow people to use it to poke fun at them and be derogatory to them ...?
"... look he wrote this awful stuff, he must have, it has his name on it on a AASA licence"
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, CC0 is the only one I care for. It is probably the best license to use if you don't want the "restrictions" of the GPL to apply to the work. It essentially makes the work Public Domain.
If you'd like restrictions on reuse of your work, that's where the GPL comes in. So the other CC's aren't of much interest to me, unless I need to use someone else's work that used it.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, the Creative Commons have gone through 5 versions of licenses (1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 2.5 and 3.0) in just over 4 years and (as far as I know) there is no forwards or backwards compatibility between the different versions.
There is forward compatibility, since I think version 2.0, 1.0 lacked it:
Original works which are fan-fiction friendly? (Score:3)
No documentation? Huh. Well, what about fiction?
I want to publish both a novel and an iPhone RPG under a fan-fiction friendly license. Essentially what I want is to sell stories and games on the App Store, but allow my readers/players to, legally and safely, create Creative Commons, Share Alike, Non-Commercial original stories using the characters and settings I've created.
Note, original. I would rather not see the whole book reproduced on the web, but I would love to see, say, the whole story retold and rewritten from another character's perspective. Or for a prequel, or a side story, or a 'dark and gritty re-imagining', etc.
The intention here is to allow other writers to create original stories using the characters I've created (AKA fan fiction), and to publish such as they wish, safe from legal threats. Yes, safe even from ME, so if I go mad with wealth/power/poverty and decide to sue everyone, those who have created fan fiction using my stories can tell me to suck it and die.
Ideally, if possible, I would also like a canonization clause. If someone writes fan fiction that I quite like, with their approval, I may integrate elements of their story into a sequel, side story, etc. This requires the author's express, written permission and they are more than entitled to say "no thanks".
Is there any licencing model that covers that?
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you just include a promise not to sue, specifically for the use of the characters and places, names and likenesses, within the work itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but for those people who don't have one and/or can't afford one (since we have established that you can do software development for at least some platforms cheaply enough for this to be relevant) it seems like at least trying to do the right thing ought to win you some points. I don't let not being able to afford legal counsel stop me from getting involved in something. I guess that's part of the joy of not having dependents.
Re: (Score:2)
What I would do is label it CC-BY-NC-ND, then make it explicit you make an exemption for using your characters or whatever.
Or, you could go the usual route, and say "copyright 2011 Sasayaki, all rights reserved", and then just ignore/support people when they're all right with you.
(Of course, if you really expect your project to go anywhere, you'd be best off with a real lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to Bruce Perens article from 2009 (Score:2)
There was a similar article from Bruce Perens a few years back: http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/1633200/How-Many-Open-Source-Licenses-Do-You-Need [slashdot.org]
He describes his reasons differently, but arrives at the same conclusions. For those of you worried about the missing option of the BSD license, he does talk about this a little bit. But only a little bit -- it's quite a short article. Worth a read for an alternate take of the same point of view.
I must be psychic (Score:2)
I must be psychic. I knew exactly which licenses they'd recommend before even reading the article, right up to suggesting the Apache 2.0 license if you couldn't use one of the 3 GPLv3 licenses.
Seriously, the FSF and GNU are the same (heck, all the email links on the FSF page footer are gnu.org email addresses), so of course they're going to suggest their own licenses. Some real news would be advice on choosing a license from some unbiased source.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming your goal is to support free software in general and not say deliberately choose incompatible licenses for strategic reasons like sun did with opensolaris then IMO there are two main descisions to be made.
1: which matters more to you, the patent protection clauses in newer licenses or the wider compatibility of older licenses.
2: do you want "no copyleft", "library copyleft", or "full copyleft"
Based on the answer to those questions chose between Apache2+, LGPL3+, GPL3+, BSD/MIT, LGPL2+ or GPL2+.
I'd
My list would be a little different (Score:2)
Having written quite a few assundry Free Software projects myself, I actually came up with my own list through trial-and-error. It goes like this:
Basicaly, there are three levels of needs:
For 1: use the full o
Re:Two views of copyright? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If copyright were a reasonable length (say.. 15 years) this would not be an issue.
So linux 2.0 goes into the public domain, all the better for society yeah? People are completely free to make derivative works, and 2.0 is rather useless by todays standards. Whereas more recent works like 2.6 are still protected.
Windows 95 is then also public domain, especially useful if someone has the source code locked away somewhere (which would also expire from copyright) so it could be released to further the reverse en
Re:15 years is more than enough (Score:2)
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I think these copyright proposals need a "small-profit (ad revenue on blogs) derivative works allowed" clause because tons of people just want to mash up stuff but they have no pla
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One of the first paragraphs:
"When you contribute to an existing project, you should usually release your modified versions under the same license as the original work. It's good to cooperate with the project's maintainers, and using a different license for your modifications often makes that cooperation very difficult. You should only do that when there is a strong reason to justify it."
That's a key part of what they advocate and very different from the attitude that you attribute to them.
When they're talki
Re: (Score:2)
Then why should we even talk about their recommendations? Microsoft recommends that you run a Windows operating system. The company that makes your toothpaste recommends that you use their toothpaste. Who the fuck cares? It's just self-promotion.
Re: (Score:2)
Free software is dead.
Did Netcraft confirm it?
Re: (Score:3)
Now look here, I came here for a good argument, not just simple contradiction!
Re: (Score:2)
Since your licence is "none", we cannot see or hear your great creation, because you have not given us any licence to do so. So, you can stick your great creation up your closet and enjoy being the great creator you are.
Re: (Score:2)
When we eventually fuse computers with our brains this will be a serious issue.
So, we may one day see the day when a laws is passed requiring us to disable our eidetic memory chip when reading, watching movies, or enjoying any copyrighted work? I can almost see that happening.