On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:54:41 +0200 Quentin Lefebvre <quentin.lefeb...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Hi, > > Currently working on an open source project, we are looking for an > appropriate license for it. > > We would like something that allows us to work with people in a way > such that : > - we can be informed of modifications of our program by developers, Unless such a requirement were sufficiently narrowly tailored it would IMO make a license not open source. Certainly no mainstream OSI-approved license contains anything like such a requirement. > - we can have "our word to say" about redistribution of modified > code (i.e. we would like to be able to explicitly authorize people to > share the modified code). That would obviously make the license not open source. > There is something in the GNU (L)GPL in article 2 that looks like > what we want, but this 2nd article is not so obvious and seems in > contradiction with others. Here is what is said : To clarify, this is from GPLv3, section 2. > "You may convey covered works to others *for the sole purpose of > having them make modifications exclusively for you*, or provide you > with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply > with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which > you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the > covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under > your direction and control, *on terms that prohibit them from making > any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship > with you*." I believe you may be misunderstanding the point of this provision. It is intended to carve out of the normal copyleft requirements the situation where a company gives some software to an off-site contractor for development or datacenter operations, in circumstances that might otherwise be argued to be distribution to a third party in the GPLv2 sense. Anyway, this is not what you want. > But in GNU GPL's FAQ, here is what we found : > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA , > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA , > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA . > > I'd be very pleased to have more information and explanations about > this kind of non disclosure agreement. How is it possible exactly > under the GPL or LGPL terms ? > Should we maybe choose another license for our purpose ? > Are our goals in total contradiction with open source software ? Your goals appear to be essentially in total contradiction with open source software. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
