Re: ChillDB License
Yeah, I'm surprised too. I only gave a one word response of my favourite license, but damn! Everyone else flourished with good information! It's nice when something little like this sparks a discussion Anyways, I like zlib because it gives great freedoms for the consumers but makes sure that people can't claim they wrote the original software. It encourages a thank you for people who use your product but does not enforce it. Also it's really short so people *actually* might read it! Cheers! Isak Andersson Dave Everitt dever...@innotts.co.uk skrev: This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics (A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source 'split') to students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this'll make me revisit the slides... - DaveE Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the public domain. Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition for what is the public domain that every jurisdiction agrees on. Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because it would not be considered by the OSI: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion that not everything is so black-and-white. There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. And that's the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright game'. -- Chad Perrin Cheers, Norbert _ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list _ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list _ Unlimited TV Full Length Movies Online. No extra fees. Free Trial. http://click.lavabit.com/4qbucuu8xmna5ytg9ptgoct3b9pz4ikttr6iky66jaaotguqz9ny/ _ ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote: MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite. Heh. Actually, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat license has received much support as MIT license in various comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous anymore. Cheers, Paul -- Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: p...@luon.net Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little Camping app: 'a guide to software licenses' :-) On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote: MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite. Heh. Actually, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat license has received much support as MIT license in various comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous anymore. Cheers, Paul -- Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: p...@luon.net Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 ___ ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
I'm not surprised people have an opinion and are informed about these things. I'm old enough to remember how Microsoft sucked the life out of the desktop software industry due to their anti-competitive practises. They were able to do this cuz they could keep their source code secret, it enabled their monopoly and helped them use their monopoly to their competitive advantage. The only reason software does not suck any more is because of the GPL. Period. thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds. :-) It's all true, I tells ya. On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Dave Everitt dever...@innotts.co.ukwrote: Perhaps this rich seam of knowledge could be captured in a little Camping app: 'a guide to software licenses' :-) On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Trevor Johns wrote: MIT is marginally simpler to read and is unambiguous, since there's only one version. For this reason, it's my personal favorite. Heh. Actually, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**MIT_license#Various_versionshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license#Various_versions Or at the vary least, it's still a bit ambiguous. However, the Expat license has received much support as MIT license in various comminities, so I guess we might consider it not to be so ambiguous anymore. Cheers, Paul -- Web: http://paul.luon.net/home/ | E-mail: p...@luon.net Jabber/GTalk: p...@luon.net | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 __**_ __**_ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/**listinfo/camping-listhttp://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
I'll second that. I remember Ballmer's Linux is a cancer... and gave an overview of the origins and rationale to students in a (shame - the only Powerpoint) presentation I still use: http://www.slideshare.net/cubexplorer/opensource-5479951 - DaveE thank you Mr. Stallman. Thank you Mr. Torvalds. :-) ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. I'm not a big believer in copyright. — Jenna On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote: Hey there, BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved. Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with (L)GPL2 (L)GPL3 Apache MIT BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com (mailto:a...@creativepony.com) wrote: A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? — Jenna ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org (mailto:Camping-list@rubyforge.org) http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
You could read Stallman's CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. I'm not a big believer in copyright. — Jenna On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 10:57 PM, Anthony Durity wrote: Hey there, BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved. Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with (L)GPL2 (L)GPL3 Apache MIT BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. Hope that helps. Apologies if you already knew all this. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com wrote: A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? — Jenna ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com wrote: This is very helpful! I don't really mind though. Maybe public domain is best. I'm not a big believer in copyright. Public domain is people can do whatever they want with it. BSD is people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain copyright and they must credit me. (so the copyright part isn't that important there). GPL is people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep it in GPL and credit me. ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
LOL if you don't, that's okay! Just in case you did... - DE Why would I care if they did that? — Jenna On Wednesday, 2 May 2012 at 11:19 PM, Dave Everitt wrote: You could read Stallman's CopyLeft idea http://www.gnu.org/ copyleft/ to prevent unscrupulous individual from turning your code into a profitable product (I think) - DaveE ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
thanks Magnus, Anthony - that's all going in my quickref 'solutions log'... DE Public domain is people can do whatever they want with it. BSD is people can do whatever they want with it, but I retain copyright and they must credit me. (so the copyright part isn't that important there). GPL is people can do whatever they want with it as long as they keep it in GPL and credit me. BSD uses full copyright, it's like saying all rights reserved. Public domain means no rights reserved, it's not a FOSS thing - FOSS means generally an accepted free software license or and accepted open-source license. Public domain isn't a license per se. Licenses like the GPL-style licenses force the code to remain open if an entity modifies the source _and_ redistributes the subsequent binaries. BSD does not enforce this. BSD is thus sometimes seen as more corporate-friendly. Depending on your notion of freedom (freedom from something or freedom to do something) you may feel that BSD-style is freer or GPL-like is freer. If you want to have a FOSS license then normally go with (L)GPL2 (L)GPL3 Apache MIT BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FSF_approved_software_licences If you want to free it to the four corners of the earth but not have it FOSS then public domain it - certain high profile pieces of software are public domain (Sqlite I think?) but not many. ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
Zlib! Cheers! Isak Andersson Jenna Fox a...@creativepony.com skrev: A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven't explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it's not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? — Jenna Get the best selection of equity home loans sites here. Click Here to check them out! http://click.lavabit.com/rrjir48a1nszui17hy4oa5sie7yeqtbcfzk8zmjq58yxbtmrrguy/ ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the public domain. Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition for what is the public domain that every jurisdiction agrees on. Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because it would not be considered by the OSI: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion that not everything is so black-and-white. There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. And that's the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright game'. -- Chad Perrin Cheers, Norbert ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
Re: ChillDB License
This is all interesting stuff - never knew the Camping community had a licensing information stream. I gave a talk that included the basics (A tiny history of Stallman, FOSS and the Open Source 'split') to students a few years back. If I ever do it again, this'll make me revisit the slides... - DaveE Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the public domain. Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition for what is the public domain that every jurisdiction agrees on. Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because it would not be considered by the OSI: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/52.html I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion that not everything is so black-and-white. There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. And that's the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright game'. -- Chad Perrin Cheers, Norbert ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list ___ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
