libposix-development

[libposix-development] The BSD license

[Henrique A. <hd...@gm...>]

 In the beginning of the project I wasn't sure on which license to
choose, but I've decided to choose the BSD license because of the
following:

 - It's compatible with the GPL
 - It's not "copyleft"
 - It's widely used by our target audience (eg, in linux, BSD and Mac)
 - AFAICT It's a generally known license, even in realms outside Unix
or free software

 It would be perfect if libposix had a single license. This is
specially important for companies that would like to use libposix. The
3 clause license seemed okay for me, but both NetBSD and FreeBSD use a
two clause license. The difference is the clause "Neither the name of
the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to
endorse or promote products derived from this software without
specific prior written permission." Since we're not a defined
organization, we could skip that too. We have a few choices:

 - Keep with the 3 clause license. We could define the "libposix
group" just to keep with the "non endorsement" restriction. As long as
we don't actually copy and paste code, I think it's safe to, at least
read other BSD code (I'm not a lawyer, though). :-P
 - Change to a 2 clause license. In this case, we can freely copy and
paste NetBSD and FreeBSD code, for example.
 - Allow mixing of all BSD-like licenses (that are compatible with GPL
and are not copyleft). Not the ideal world, but no lawyer would die
either.

 The BSD licenses are explained in:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

 Everybody must read this, since your code will be licensed with it.
Basically, it means that people can do almost anything with your code
(for example, make money with it), but can't claim that you didn't
write it.

-- 
 Henrique Dante de Almeida
 hd...@gm...

Re: [libposix-development] The BSD license

[Henrique A. <hd...@gm...>]

 There's an interesting point: maybe if we make a derivative work we
can relicense BSD code. For example, an application that uses BSD code
can be licensed as a proprietary application.

"Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL insist that modified versions
of the program must be free software as well. Non-copyleft licenses do
not insist on this."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

 Oh, the licensing hell... :-(

2009/6/3 Henrique Almeida <hd...@gm...>:
>  In the beginning of the project I wasn't sure on which license to
> choose, but I've decided to choose the BSD license because of the
> following:
>
>  - It's compatible with the GPL
>  - It's not "copyleft"
>  - It's widely used by our target audience (eg, in linux, BSD and Mac)
>  - AFAICT It's a generally known license, even in realms outside Unix
> or free software
>
>  It would be perfect if libposix had a single license. This is
> specially important for companies that would like to use libposix. The
> 3 clause license seemed okay for me, but both NetBSD and FreeBSD use a
> two clause license. The difference is the clause "Neither the name of
> the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without
> specific prior written permission." Since we're not a defined
> organization, we could skip that too. We have a few choices:
>
>  - Keep with the 3 clause license. We could define the "libposix
> group" just to keep with the "non endorsement" restriction. As long as
> we don't actually copy and paste code, I think it's safe to, at least
> read other BSD code (I'm not a lawyer, though). :-P
>  - Change to a 2 clause license. In this case, we can freely copy and
> paste NetBSD and FreeBSD code, for example.
>  - Allow mixing of all BSD-like licenses (that are compatible with GPL
> and are not copyleft). Not the ideal world, but no lawyer would die
> either.
>
>  The BSD licenses are explained in:
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>
>  Everybody must read this, since your code will be licensed with it.
> Basically, it means that people can do almost anything with your code
> (for example, make money with it), but can't claim that you didn't
> write it.
>
> --
>  Henrique Dante de Almeida
>  hd...@gm...
>



-- 
 Henrique Dante de Almeida
 hd...@gm...

Re: [libposix-development] The BSD license

[Andreas K. <akr...@go...>]

Hi,
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Henrique Almeida <hd...@gm...> wrote:

>  It would be perfect if libposix had a single license. This is
> specially important for companies that would like to use libposix. The
> 3 clause license seemed okay for me, but both NetBSD and FreeBSD use a
> two clause license. The difference is the clause "Neither the name of
> the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without
> specific prior written permission." Since we're not a defined
> organization, we could skip that too. We have a few choices:
>
>  - Keep with the 3 clause license. We could define the "libposix
> group" just to keep with the "non endorsement" restriction. As long as
> we don't actually copy and paste code, I think it's safe to, at least
> read other BSD code (I'm not a lawyer, though). :-P
>  - Change to a 2 clause license. In this case, we can freely copy and
> paste NetBSD and FreeBSD code, for example.
>  - Allow mixing of all BSD-like licenses (that are compatible with GPL
> and are not copyleft). Not the ideal world, but no lawyer would die
> either.


I'm fine with either 2- or 3-clause BSD license. Since 2-clause is pretty
much the standard in the BSD world these days (besides ISC license which is
OpenBSD's preferred license), it's probably wise to stick to it.

Also an interesting source regarding licenses:
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
"The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright
with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention."

Personally, I'm fine with either of these.

Regards,
Andreas

Re: [libposix-development] The BSD license

[Henrique A. <hd...@gm...>]

 Since there are no more comments, let's switch to the 2-clause license.

2009/6/3 Andreas Krennmair <akr...@go...>:
> Hi,
>
> I'm fine with either 2- or 3-clause BSD license. Since 2-clause is pretty
> much the standard in the BSD world these days (besides ISC license which is
> OpenBSD's preferred license), it's probably wise to stick to it.
>
> Also an interesting source regarding licenses:
> http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
> "The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD copyright
> with language removed that is made unnecessary by the Berne convention."
>
> Personally, I'm fine with either of these.
>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OpenSolaris 2009.06 is a cutting edge operating system for enterprises
> looking to deploy the next generation of Solaris that includes the latest
> innovations from Sun and the OpenSource community. Download a copy and
> enjoy capabilities such as Networking, Storage and Virtualization.
> Go to: http://p.sf.net/sfu/opensolaris-get
> _______________________________________________
> Libposix-development mailing list
> Lib...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libposix-development
>
>



-- 
 Henrique Dante de Almeida
 hd...@gm...