Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

passbe · 2009-07-29 01:24:33

I am soon going to release some public utilities i have coded. These programs / scripts are nothing big, however i need to license them with an open source standard (i have looked at the MIT and GNU). Id like:

1. The code can be reused, modified, as long as the lisence stays intack and a reference to the original author is included (ie me)
2. Mitigate me from any damages the code may cause if used in a correct or incorrect manner.

I am a bit confused about the standards, but i thought id post here to see what everyone else uses / thinks ?

Ghost1227 · 2009-07-29 02:06:14

I usually use GPL, but I don't restrict use in any way (to include attribution). Check out the Open Source Initiative's for a list of OSI approved licenses.

benob · 2009-07-29 03:06:34

GPL ensures that the code is reused, modified and the license stays the same.
Copyright statements have to be kept and they include your name.
Add this to the output/about: "This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

As the original author, you can always dual license a version of your software for the specific purpose of the moment. I always license my code in GPL v3, with the option of making a specific release with a license for commercial purposes.

csstaub · 2009-07-29 07:42:06

I use the ISC License for everything I can. It is similar to the MIT license but simpler (with language made unnecessary by the Berne convention removed). In my opinion the GPL is way too complicated and has too many restrictions. In fact, I can just paste the ISC License right here:

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

You can immediatly see what it does just by reading it, no legal mumbo-jumbo or the like. Of course, the license doesn't have a copyleft. If you want that, you should go for the GPL. But if you prefer MIT/BSD-style licenses, the ISC License would be a good choice.

Barrucadu · 2009-07-29 08:07:14

I just don't bother licensing anything I release. Someone can do whatever they want with it, for all I care.

u_no_hu · 2009-07-29 08:27:46

Barrucadu wrote:

I just don't bother licensing anything I release. Someone can do whatever they want with it, for all I care.

If you don't license it, then others can't do anything with your code. No license != public domain....

u_no_hu · 2009-07-29 08:32:08

passbe wrote:

I am soon going to release some public utilities i have coded. These programs / scripts are nothing big, however i need to license them with an open source standard (i have looked at the MIT and GNU). Id like:
1. The code can be reused, modified, as long as the lisence stays intack and a reference to the original author is included (ie me)
2. Mitigate me from any damages the code may cause if used in a correct or incorrect manner.
I am a bit confused about the standards, but i thought id post here to see what everyone else uses / thinks ?

As somebody has said above, ISC license is what you are looking for.

passbe · 2009-07-29 09:44:21

Thanks guys, i will have to read a bit more but youve given me something to start with.

cactus · 2009-07-29 16:14:52

the MIT license is also good. very similar to the 2-clause bsd, which is also very similar to the ISC license.

sirmacik · 2009-07-29 17:03:23

I'm usually using GPLv3.

Last edited by sirmacik (2009-07-29 17:07:30)

Peasantoid · 2009-07-29 17:19:14

GPLv3 for my projects, although it's freaking long.

Xyne · 2009-07-29 17:24:38

u_no_hu wrote:

Barrucadu wrote:
I just don't bother licensing anything I release. Someone can do whatever they want with it, for all I care.
If you don't license it, then others can't do anything with your code. No license != public domain....

I thought that all works that can be copyrighted are copyrighted by default. For example, if you post code or a photo without an accompanying license, then you actually restrict everyone from legally using it, or rather you have the legal right to go after people for copyright infringement if you feel like it.

This probably varies between jurisdictions, but without a license you leave your users on shaky legal grounds... after all, you might think you'll never go after someone, but you might wake up tomorrow and decide to be a complete f*cktard patent troll.

Barrucadu · 2009-07-29 17:29:16

Well, in the juristiction of me, no license = public domain

Presumably anyone who seeks out and looks through any code I've put online knows a little about me. And therefore knows that I don't like copyright at all.

Last edited by Barrucadu (2009-07-29 17:30:11)

cactus · 2009-07-29 18:32:38

Xyne wrote:

I thought that all works that can be copyrighted are copyrighted by default. For example, if you post code or a photo without an accompanying license, then you actually restrict everyone from legally using it, or rather you have the legal right to go after people for copyright infringement if you feel like it.

I believe that is indeed correct, in accordance with the Berne Convention's "minimum requirements".

knopper92 · 2009-09-07 01:04:21

I use the GPL (version 3).

Sure, some people don't use it because it's too 'restrictive'. But It doesn't really matter unless your a money-hungry corporation.

zhurai · 2009-09-07 01:25:17

personally trying to decide between the New BSD License or the GPL one X_X

akurashy · 2009-09-07 01:48:10

On a relatively "big project" which is just me working my way to reach my vision is under the LGPL and other small stuff I just go choose MIT or CC license. Never used GPL ( of course LGPL and GPL are pratically the same except for some exceptions)

Last edited by akurashy (2009-09-07 01:48:43)

Ranguvar · 2009-09-07 02:15:12

I use the ISC license (basically the new BSD, made simpler) for most random stuff, and if it's something I feel like "donating" (if I wrote device drivers, I'd put them under this, for example). Otherwise, LGPL/GPL v3.

scragar · 2009-09-07 02:32:47

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

Either that or public domain. I'm just not a big fan of rules, although I used to stick by one or two of the BSD licenses before I got bored of explaining them.

Runiq · 2009-09-07 09:29:47

Barrucadu wrote:

Well, in the juristiction of me, no license = public domain

In Germany, if you don't license your work explicitly, normal copyright law applies, which means people aren't allowed to do anything with your stuff until like 70 years after, um, your death. I recommend licensing it somehow, if you don't like the license, you're free to change it at any time, as far as I know. You're the creator, after all.

Edit: Of course, that's in Germany - I don't know if it's the same all over the globe.

Last edited by Runiq (2009-09-07 09:30:18)

Ranguvar · 2009-09-07 13:49:29

It's the same deal in the US, IIRC.

Renan Birck · 2009-09-08 03:35:29

For code: GPL, will consider the ISC.
For non-code: Creative Commons (usually BY-SA or BY-NC-SA).

Runiq · 2009-09-08 05:51:39

Renan Birck wrote:

For code: GPL, will consider the ISC.
For non-code: Creative Commons (usually BY-SA or BY-NC-SA).

The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License

Last edited by Runiq (2009-09-08 05:51:55)

jinks · 2009-09-08 07:30:40

I have a love/hate relationship with the GPL. Sure, I'd like my code to stay free, but otoh it puts off potential contributors (not that I've released anything worthwile yet).
So even if I like the spirit of the GPL, I usually use BSD for my work. (BSD is also pretty common in the python world where I live mostly.) I might consider ISC for it's clarity in the future.
WTFPL is also nice, but I guess not really "loved" by corporates .

On another note:

Runiq wrote:

In Germany, if you don't license your work explicitly, normal copyright law applies, which means people aren't allowed to do anything with your stuff until like 70 years after, um, your death.

Also keep in mind, that the concept of Public Domain doesn't exist in Germany, so you technically have to use a license for your work to make it usable in Germany.

(I'm not sure, but I think this only applies if you release work while being a german citizen. Although it could be interesting to put a work under PD and then try and sue a german user under german jurisdiction. )

Last edited by jinks (2009-09-08 07:32:53)

Runiq · 2009-09-08 09:17:59

jinks wrote:

Runiq wrote:
In Germany, if you don't license your work explicitly, normal copyright law applies, which means people aren't allowed to do anything with your stuff until like 70 years after, um, your death.
Also keep in mind, that the concept of Public Domain doesn't exist in Germany, so you technically have to use a license for your work to make it usable in Germany.
(I'm not sure, but I think this only applies if you release work while being a german citizen. Although it could be interesting to put a work under PD and then try and sue a german user under german jurisdiction. )

Hah! Thanks, I didn't know that. Remind me to never, ever use any of your PD-licensed stuff.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-07-29 01:24:33

Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#2 2009-07-29 02:06:14

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#3 2009-07-29 03:06:34

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#4 2009-07-29 07:42:06

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#5 2009-07-29 08:07:14

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#6 2009-07-29 08:27:46

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#7 2009-07-29 08:32:08

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#8 2009-07-29 09:44:21

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#9 2009-07-29 16:14:52

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#10 2009-07-29 17:03:23

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#11 2009-07-29 17:19:14

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#12 2009-07-29 17:24:38

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#13 2009-07-29 17:29:16

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#14 2009-07-29 18:32:38

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#15 2009-09-07 01:04:21

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#16 2009-09-07 01:25:17

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#17 2009-09-07 01:48:10

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#18 2009-09-07 02:15:12

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#19 2009-09-07 02:32:47

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#20 2009-09-07 09:29:47

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#21 2009-09-07 13:49:29

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#22 2009-09-08 03:35:29

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#23 2009-09-08 05:51:39

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#24 2009-09-08 07:30:40

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

#25 2009-09-08 09:17:59

Re: Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

Board footer