The decision is for you to make, of course, but I agree with Mark. With a slight modification, the LGPL seems to fit.
Rod ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christophe Dupre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Mark Rafn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:11 PM Subject: Re: New license - please comment : : The problem (from our perspective) with your proposition is that if the : 3rd party is too lazy to submit a patch, is run over by a bus, or is : unavailable, even if we get the code from a 4th party that got it from the : 3rd party, we're no longer able to re-license the code to commercial : entities. : The type of libraries we're planning on releasing are not general public : code (as zlib, or gtk, or other could be). They're very specific libraries : for parallel computing on teraflop-sized machines. They are the result of : several years of research, and through the years we've found that our : biggest difficulty is to get patches in from people who've extended them. : Most of the work is done by grad students, who couldn't care less about : what happens to their work after they graduate. : : Now, what is inherently bad about clause 2(d) ? We're providing the : libraries freely (money). And you are free to use them in whatever : programs you want. The only thing we ask is if you modify them, we co-own : the copyright. You still keep it, which gives you a garantee that there's : always going to be a free version out there (i.e. we can't just take it : back). : : Giving us co-ownership of the modifications doesn't take anything from : you, does it ? It doesn't restrain your freedom. It's no different from : the GPL that makes you give out your code if you link your proprietary : (closed) code with a GPL library (not LGPL). : : : : On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Mark Rafn wrote: : : > On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Christophe Dupre wrote: : > : > > 2(a) in our draft has the same purpose as the LGPL : it is for licensing : > > libraries that must be usable with commercial software (or at least linked : > > with non-free libraries and programs). : > : > An important distinction is that the LGPL grants permissions IN ADDITION : > to those granted by the GPL. It is not JUST for licensing libraries that : > can be linked to non-free programs, it is for doing that in addition to : > being free software itself. : > : > > - Library must be usable in any program, no matter its licensing. : > : > LGPL covers this. : > : > > - Use of library must not mandate releasing proprietary code, as long as : > > no change is made to the library. : > : > LGPL covers this. : > : > > - Fixes and enhancements made by 3rd party should be incorporated in the : > > main line of the library. : > : > IMO, this should be up to the 3rd party. Requiring such a grant of : > copyright as a consideration for the ability to modify the software is not : > free, IMO. Requesting it (and making it clear that patches explicitly : > submitted to you imply this) is fine. : > : > > - Rensselaer must able to give commercial entited licenses to : > > commercialise (or make commercial products based on parts of the library) : > > without being subject to this license. : > : > You're already not subject to the license on code you own. This seems to : > be covered by the previous requirement. : > : > > The last point is the reason of 2(d). While it is true that we could : > > simply refuse code from parties unwilling to give us co-ownership (or : > > license) their modifications : > : > This is the approach taken by many open-source projects, and one I : > heartily recommend. : > : > > Also, asking each 3rd party providing a patch to sign a document is : > > tedious are requires non-trivial record keeping. We think this is a way : > > to avoid that. : > : > If you don't need a signed document in your proposed license, why would : > you need one for the voluntary assignment? : > : > I wonder if you can use the LGPL verbatim, and include a seperate notice : > that says "Any patches or changes sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" are assumed to be : > intended for inclusion in the main program, and by submitting such a : > change you assign the copyright to RPI. : > -- : > Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> : > -- : > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 : > : : : -- : Christophe Dupre : System Administrator, Scientific Computation Research Center : Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute : Troy, NY USA : Phone: (518) 276-2578 - Fax: (518) 276-4886 : : : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
