On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:59:20AM +0100, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Robert Shiels wrote:
> > A lot of you write and distribute free perl code. What do you do about
> > copyright and disclaimers in the code itself. I've had a look at a few
> > examples and it seems you don't really bother.
> > 
> > I think it is probably worth doing, and we will need one for the
> > NotMattsScripts project, so does anyone have a good concise copyright and
> > disclaimer notice for free Perl code? I've googled around and can't find
> > anything I like.
> 
> The simplist would be 
> # Name - brief description. (c) Copyright 2001 A Nother #
> # This is free software available under the same license as perl itself 
> # This sofwate comes with NO WARRANTY. For more information see URL or
> FILE.
> 
> The NO WARRANTY bit is fairly important, as is specifiying uunder what
> license it is made availab.e - common are Public Doman (not teh default,
> default is all rights reserved), BSD & artistic license (fairly
> similar) and the GNU GPL and LGPL.
> 
> I habitually use the GPL, I have only recently realised how much of a pig
> it can be to keep a derived work compliant. It will now take as long to
> audit the changes made to mny derived work of mwforum as it did to do some
> of the debugging. This is a good thing and a bad thing - It does mean you
> keep more control over your work, but at the same time it means that there
> is little reward for doing a major piece of work on somebody elses code,
> even if you replace 99% of it, its still entirely their copyright and not
> yours, so you essentially hand over your moral rights to waht you have
> done.

This is the reason why many people prefer the simpler BSD license.
It doesn't protect you against your code being taken and used by a
commercial entity, but if you don't have a problem with that, then fine.
OTOH, the BSD license is a lot smaller, and simpler to understand and
apply.  It can generally be included in each file without too much hassle
(imagine including the whole GPL in each file!).  I attach a copy for
your reference.  It's the modern (FreeBSD) variety with the obnoxious
advertising clause removed.

The BSD license can be useful, depending upon the target audience.  If
you just want people to run your code without worrying about GPL
compliance (this is an issue for some companies), then the BSD license
is well suited.

A similiar license is the original MIT/X license (see
/usr/X11R6/include/X11/X.h for an example).

-Dom
# Copyright (c) 2001 Dominic Mitchell
# All rights reserved.
#
# Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
# modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
# are met:
# 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
# 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
#    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
#    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
#
# THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
# ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
# IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
# ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
# FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
# DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
# OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
# HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
# LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
# OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
# SUCH DAMAGE.

Reply via email to