Re: [DoomBSP] License

[Andre M. <ay...@do...>]

On 2000-09-21 09:05 +0100, Colin Phipps wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 05:06:44PM +0000, Andre Majorel wrote:
> > Colin, could you try to clarify a bit BSP's license and your
> > intentions regarding it ? The web page says it's BSD, COPYING
> > says something else.  It would be nice to be more precise,
> > especially since BSP is included is other software.
> 
> The only requirements that the BSP source makes is that the authors 
> continue to receive credit. The Sourceforge page says it's BSD because that 
> was the closest license its list. I *am* thinking of putting in a normal 
> BSD license for the next version though, since the wording is clearer and 
> the disclaimer is needed.
> 
> > My personal preference goes to the GPL, of course. If you ask
> > me, I'd hate to see BSP licensed under a BSD-ish license.
> 
> There are 2 situations in which it makes a difference:
> - closed source forks of BSP,

That was exactly my concern. We've seen that happen before.
Perhaps not in the case of BSP but I believe it happened at
least twice for DEU.

>but given BSP 3.0 source is available anyone 
>  can do that anyway

Sure, but it's not because it's always been broken that it
should not be fixed.

Leaving open the possibility of a closed fork acts as a
deterrent more than an incentive to most potential contributors.

> - the non-GPL Doom ports want to include bits of BSP, or contribute bits 
>  to it.

I think these are illegal anyway. Wasn't there an argument
recently between Carmack and the author of csDoom ?

> I don't much like the non-GPL ports, nor would closed source forks be nice, 
> but I can't stop either, and by staying with a BSD-like license I think I 
> reduce the chance of forking in the first place.

Er... more so than with a GPL license ?

> > (I'm not sure whether it would be OK to release under the GPL
> > without the original authors' permission, though. In my
> > understanding, the GPL does not insist on giving proper credit,
> > unlike BSP's original "license".)
> 
> I think a "give credit" license is compatible with the GPL, which 
> contains the same idea expressed as preserving copyright notices.

Mmm. Hope so. Or perhaps GPL + special "give credit" clause. If
we agreed on the principle, we could ask the GPL heads on
gnu.misc.discuss about the details.

-- 
André Majorel
Work: <ay...@do...>
Home: <ama...@te...> http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/