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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to