[tdsoc] Re: license of our projects
- From: Alessio Parzian <parzio90@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tdsoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:14:11 +0100
As said by @Lorenzo:
the last step we need to accomplish is to decide which type of opensource
> license our projects will use. we need something which allows
> everyone to use / modify our code for both free and commercial open/closed
> source projects, if and only if they indicate us as the source of the work.
>
In the case all requirements need to be respected Apache2 is the most
appropriate. In my last email I said I completely agree with @Davide who
said just that. But, I've actually appreciated what he told about LGPL. I
believe this project indirectly endorses the world of free software and try
to advantage it the most as possible.
@Federico asked me why choosing LGPL rather than GPL; if I could decide I
definitely opted for GPL just because I'm a supporter of copy-left concept.
Unfortunately classic GPL is too far from our requirements, therefore
following this philosophy, LGPLv2.1 (quite similar to GPLv2) may fit.
As said by @Davide:
I find LGPL a good compromise between permissive and copyleft licences.
I would like to report the salient tips of GPLv2.1 license [
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html]:
We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
> library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
> permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
>
> To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
> no warranty for the free library. Also, if the library is modified by
> someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
> is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
> not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
>
> Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
> free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
> restrict the users of a free program by obtaining a restrictive license
> from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license obtained
> for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of
> use specified in this license.
>
> Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
> GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
> License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
> from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain
> libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-free programs.
>
> When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
> shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
> work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public
> License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
> its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more lax
> criteria for linking other code with the library.
>
> We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it does
> Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
> License. It also provides other free software developers Less of an
> advantage over competing non-free programs. These disadvantages are the
> reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
> However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
> circumstances.
>
> For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
> the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a de-facto
> standard. To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to use the
> library. A more frequent case is that a free library does the same job as
> widely used non-free libraries. In this case, there is little to gain by
> limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the Lesser
> General Public License.
>
> In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free
> programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free
> software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
> programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system, as
> well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
>
> Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
> users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
> with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
> using a modified version of the Library.
>
> The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
> modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a "work
> based on the library" and a "work that uses the library". The former
> contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be combined
> with the library in order to run.
>
Futhermore I add a detail actually interesting. In the case someone will
modify our work and will redistribute it, anyone will receive the modified
work must be informed that is not the original one.
In conclusion I remark that apache2 is suitable but BSD license is simpler
and even better given those requirements. In any case I definitely prefer
LGPL due to a question of philosophy in advantage of free software.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Federico "fox" Scrinzi <fox91@xxxxxxxx>wrote:
> On lun, 2013-03-04 at 17:13 +0100, Alessio Parzian wrote:
> > I had a glance to the possible licences too. I completely agree with
> > @Davide. In my opinion LGPL fits best in this case, it allows us to
> > find the right balance.
>
> Why do you think that LGPL is better than plain GPL? If you don't want
> to encourage proprietary works then GPL is better while for commercial
> use Apache is better.
> I think that Apache (or BSD/MIT) fits better because if some companies
> would like to use our products for commercial use they could modify our
> work in order to be more suitable to their needs without having to
> release the source. LGPL is not widely accepted in the enterprise world
> because of that.
> OpenSSL for example (which is kinda similar) is released under the terms
> of the Apache license.
>
>
> my 0,02$
>
> --
> f.
>
> "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache
> invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors."
>
>
--
"We must combine the toughness of the serpent and the softness of the dove,
a tough mind and a tender heart.”
Other related posts:
