License for a MTA

akurei · 2011-02-12 18:15:47

Hi!

I was wondering what license you guys would recommend for a mail transfer daemon. At first I was thinking: Make it GPLv3, but afterwards I thought about the MIT Liscense, because commercial parties should also be able to use it. On the other hand: Commercial parties still can use tha MTA, even when GPL'd.

What would you recommend?

tavianator · 2011-02-12 18:35:53

Pick the license that expresses what you want people to be able to do with your software. There's varying degrees of freedom that people want to give out with their software, and they basically are these:

"I don't care what people/companies do with it, go nuts": Public domain, or WTFPL (my personal favourite license)
"People/companies can do what they want, but I want to be credited in derivative works": BSD/ISC/MIT style licenses
"Derivative works should also be open source": GPL/LGPL

This is a rough overview, but I think it captures the gist of the common open source licenses.

cactus · 2011-02-12 22:10:39

technically bsd (3rd edition and later)/isc/mit do not require credit. They simply require that the original copyright be present in the source code. A closed source app could use said code without providing end user notification that they are using said code.

public domain code can be claimed to be written by someone else. no requirement for retaining copyright. I would never recommend someone release their code to the public domain. Besides having weird legal connotations, you can possibly lose disclaimant of damages. public domain/wtfpl provide no benefit beyond bsd/isc/mit, while being more problematic in jurisdictions that do not have public domain provisions. quick google result as example

So I would really only recommend:
1) bsd/isc/mit - do whatever you want, but keep my copyright in the source code.
2) apache - do whatever you want, but with a patent disclaimant clause more info
3) lgpl - you can include the code in an app without requiring it to be gpl, but the code itself is basically gpl (aka linking provision)
4) gpl - derivative works must also be gpl

note: this is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer, etc etc..

Last edited by cactus (2011-02-12 22:13:21)

tavianator · 2011-02-12 23:29:49

cactus wrote:

technically bsd (3rd edition and later)/isc/mit do not require credit. They simply require that the original copyright be present in the source code. A closed source app could use said code without providing end user notification that they are using said code.

Really?

2-clause BSD license wrote:

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.

I've always taken that to mean that your copyright notice has to show up with derivative works distributed in binary form.

cactus · 2011-02-13 03:38:58

Well.. "in the documentation" isn't really end user notification. I meant like a popup window before use.

For example. Google chrome in their 'about' dialog box has a link to "other open source software".
That opens an about page with the 'credits' of included software.

So you are indeed correct. I was trying to be terse, and failing to provide a good description.

(one reason why i am not a lawyer!)

fsckd · 2011-02-13 05:15:15

akurei wrote:

At first I was thinking: Make it GPLv3, but afterwards I thought about the MIT Liscense, because commercial parties should also be able to use it. On the other hand: Commercial parties still can use tha MTA, even when GPL'd.

You're not very clear on the distinction between merely using and developing derivative works (i.e., forking). Consider this, what privileges do you want to grant your users?

akurei · 2011-02-13 10:44:56

Thank you guys so far for your answers!

fsckd wrote:

akurei wrote:
At first I was thinking: Make it GPLv3, but afterwards I thought about the MIT Liscense, because commercial parties should also be able to use it. On the other hand: Commercial parties still can use tha MTA, even when GPL'd.
You're not very clear on the distinction between merely using and developing derivative works (i.e., forking). Consider this, what privileges do you want to grant your users?

I quickly withdraw the idea to use an MIT-like license because I don't want people to just use the code wihtout giving improvement back.

I read through your posts and I read about licensing on other sites and I think I'll most definitely choose LGPL or GPL. Not sure whether I want to let users use the MTA in mixed non-free environments. I think I will make it GPLv3, because it's an internet core technology and unfree software has no purpose here imho.

What do you think about the AGPL (Affero GNU General Public License)?

tavianator · 2011-02-13 16:57:45

akurei wrote:

I quickly withdraw the idea to use an MIT-like license because I don't want people to just use the code wihtout giving improvement back.

From what I know, a company can always hack on your GPLed code without giving back to the community, provided they don't release the modified version to the public. The difference is that BSD-style licenses allow them to release binaries based on your code without distributing the source. For example, a lot of the Windows networking stack is based on BSD code.

What do you think about the AGPL (Affero GNU General Public License)?

I'm kind of embarrassed for forgetting to mention it earlier, actually. Basically it's like the GPL with the additional restriction that even if your software is run over a network, you still have to provide the source. This makes it a good choice for webapps, in my opinion, because it prevents someone from taking your code, improving it, and starting a for-profit business based on it without releasing those changes. You can also be more certain of the privacy and security implications of AGPL webapps, since you can see the source.

akurei · 2011-02-15 13:37:57

tavianator wrote:

akurei wrote:
I quickly withdraw the idea to use an MIT-like license because I don't want people to just use the code wihtout giving improvement back.
From what I know, a company can always hack on your GPLed code without giving back to the community, provided they don't release the modified version to the public.

Perfectly fine with me.

The difference is that BSD-style licenses allow them to release binaries based on your code without distributing the source. For example, a lot of the Windows networking stack is based on BSD code.

Yes, that's exactly what I want to avoid.

What do you think about the AGPL (Affero GNU General Public License)?
I'm kind of embarrassed for forgetting to mention it earlier, actually. Basically it's like the GPL with the additional restriction that even if your software is run over a network, you still have to provide the source. This makes it a good choice for webapps, in my opinion, because it prevents someone from taking your code, improving it, and starting a for-profit business based on it without releasing those changes. You can also be more certain of the privacy and security implications of AGPL webapps, since you can see the source.

So this should be perfect for a MTA, right?

Arch Linux

#1 2011-02-12 18:15:47

License for a MTA

#2 2011-02-12 18:35:53

Re: License for a MTA

#3 2011-02-12 22:10:39

Re: License for a MTA

#4 2011-02-12 23:29:49

Re: License for a MTA

#5 2011-02-13 03:38:58

Re: License for a MTA

#6 2011-02-13 05:15:15

Re: License for a MTA

#7 2011-02-13 10:44:56

Re: License for a MTA

#8 2011-02-13 16:57:45

Re: License for a MTA

#9 2011-02-15 13:37:57

Re: License for a MTA

Board footer