On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays <mike.je...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote: > > I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know > > that there are people here who can guide me off-list. > > > > Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've > > written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have > > developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP > > operations (including the OS itself). > > > > I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it > > into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any > > interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is > > freely accessible. > > > > All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that > > contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that > > use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. > > > > GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any > > code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code > > overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? > > > > Steve > > > > > I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose > any rights to it whatsoever. Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the copyright holder . Public Domain is a license kind which means that there is no any condition on the usage . For example , BSD-style licenses generally are mentioned as 2-clause ( conditions ) , 3-clause ( conditions ) , etc. . Public Domain license means Zero-clause license . > > I don't think the language makes any difference. Basically, the BSD license > is > OK if you don't mind others taking the code, modifying it and distributing > binaries without making the modified source available. If you don't like > the > last part, consider the GPL. > > Language and used libraries sometimes may cause problems for the users of the sources when they want to distribute executables . For example , if a BSD-style licensed source uses GPL parts as called procedures , NOT the users of the both sources have any restriction , but when executable is distributed to others , BSD-style licensed sources also should be distributed due to GPL conditions although BSD-styled licensed part itself does not require distribution . My opinion is that most restrictive license is GPL although it is claimed that it gives freedom to users to get the source and modify it when they need . One point is forgotten or ignored : A BSD-style licensed source is also available from its originators whether it is distributed by its users or not . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"