Re: License for JavaScript applications

[David Johnson]

On Fri, 19 May 2000, Samuel Reynolds wrote:

> According to Bruce Perens, it qualifies as open-source, but
> has the same loophole as the Artistic License it derives from
> (supposedly, one could write a 5-line program and then sell
> the result). 

Gee, everyone from BP to ESR to RMS keep telling me it's about free
speech and not free beer, so why do they get so worried about selling 5
line programs :-) Yes, the AL has a loophole, but the loophole has
nothing to do with the OSS definition. And despite the fact RMS no
longer considers the AL to be a Free license, it still meets each and
every one of his definitions as well. Until you get official approval,
feel free to call it a genuine Free Software License.

-- 
David Johnson...
_
http://www.usermode.org

Re: License for JavaScript applications

[mitchell baker]

Also,  the MPL define the source version as the "preferred form for making
modifications".  We used this definition precisely to pick up setting like you
describe.  So the MPL would work fine if you like the license.

When we wrote the MPL, we adopted this idea (of source as the preferred form for
making modifications) from  GPL practices.  So I assume the GPL works the same
way.  But I don't claim to have particular knowledge for the GPL, others are far
more knowledgable than I about the GPL.

Mitchell Baker

John Cowan wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
> > the application has "binary" and "source" versions.
>
> I think that there is no problem under any open-source license, since
> in no case is binary distribution compelled; it is simply allowed provided
> source is distributed also.  So there is no problem with saying that in your
> case the binary and the source are the same thing.
>
> --
>
> Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
> Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Re: License for JavaScript applications

[John Cowan]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
> However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
> the application has "binary" and "source" versions.

I think that there is no problem under any open-source license, since
in no case is binary distribution compelled; it is simply allowed provided
source is distributed also.  So there is no problem with saying that in your
case the binary and the source are the same thing.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.-- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Re: License for JavaScript applications

[Samuel Reynolds]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> I have a JavaScript application that people are able to download and use
> for free.
> 
> The current license is a bit of a made-up-on-the-spot mess and I would like
> to convert to an Open Source license.
> 
> However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
> the application has "binary" and "source" versions.
> 
> Does anybody know of a license that is aimed at script applications where
> the executable and the source are the same thing?  Is anybody working on
> such a license?  Does anybody have an opinion on the need (or not) of such
> a license?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ivan
 
I created the Frontier Artistic License for just this reason.
According to Bruce Perens, it qualifies as open-source, but
has the same loophole as the Artistic License it derives from
(supposedly, one could write a 5-line program and then sell
the result). It hasn't been officially approved by OSI, but
that appears to be possible only if you are a large,
market-affecting entity.
 
The FAL is online at .
 
- Sam

Samuel Reynolds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spinward Stars: http://www.spinwardstars.com/
Reynolds Virtual Workshop: http://www.primenet.com/~reynol/

License for JavaScript applications

[ipeters]

I have a JavaScript application that people are able to download and use
for free.

The current license is a bit of a made-up-on-the-spot mess and I would like
to convert to an Open Source license.

However, every license I have looked at so far makes the assumption that
the application has "binary" and "source" versions.

Does anybody know of a license that is aimed at script applications where
the executable and the source are the same thing?  Is anybody working on
such a license?  Does anybody have an opinion on the need (or not) of such
a license?

Cheers

Ivan