Re: [Oopic-compiler-devel] open source 'license' terms

[Brian <bri...@po...>]

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 08:09:21AM -0400, D. Daniel McGlothin wrote:
> All,
> 
> As a matter of procedure, has there been a 'license' or 'copyright' terms
> decided upon?
> 
> A quick survey of the discussion so far didn't sow any, and I do not recall
> any such discussion.
> 
> Does SourceForge 'impose' any license terms?  (I didn't check.)

Daniel--

I believe SourceForge requires an open-source license that is
compatible with the open source definition (and licenses) listed at
OSI (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php).

For this project, I'm not partial.  However, we might want to check
with Scott first to see if there is any information we are receiving
from him (code, etc.) that we do *not* have the right to release under
an open-source license (i.e., there are no patent issues, IP rights
etc.).

Also, note that the BSD license allows 3rd parties to modify the code
base without having to release modified source code (i.e., release
under a closed-source license, much like Microsoft has done with major
portions of BSD-licensed network/TCP/IP stack code).   Some folks
favor this appropach in that the BSD license doesn't "taint" future
forks by requiring release under the same open licensing scheme.  Of
course, the GPL purists believe this simply encourages people to steal
the hard work of others without requiring them to "give back" to the
open source community.

A license worth looking at is the Mozilla Public License...this one
has a provision that in the event of patent-based challenges, the
offending code can be removed from under the provisions of the MPL.
With the GPL, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing deal:  If any part of
your code is found to be infringing, the entire code base is at risk
(just check out http://www.groklaw.com to see this attack on the GPL
in action!).

  --Brian