Page 1 of 1

Need a license

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:30 pm
by alex.barylski
I'm vaguely familiar with BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc...hopefully someone can shed some light on this subject for me...

I need a license that:
- Widely accepted as open source which programmers want to use
- Disuades FREE as in speech and beer and promotes FREE as in speech only
- Requires any changes, to be returned back to the community

I want to release some framework code I've been working on to the community, but I also want to make a profit at it, commercial software is always better. Sometimes. Mine will be anyways. :D

I don't like LGPL as it's so loose, you can use it and never have to acknowledge ever using it. I want something in return for my labour as it's hundreds of hours I've spent so far and likely thousands more to come (testing, unit tests, docs, code, etc, etc...takes time).

I like the GPL because this framework would be possibly used like MySQL.

I want people who use the library freely to at least payback in someway:
- Code changes, enhancments, etc
- Acknowledgement of my software being used

Because it's a framework, building ontop of it will likely require most of any application built on top to be released as open source as well. There is no using it externally as a library, so yes, the assumption is, you use it, your app needs to be open sourced as well.

If this is unacceptable, I think a nominal fee for commercial use is in order. :)

Why? Because I feel money makes the world go round and usually results in higher quality, at least it iwll with me or anyone I employ in the future. Being a framework obviously it's going to be extended, whether that code is then considered a core part of the library being extended (thus requiring you return that code to community) or whether your extending your application code is highly debatable. So I'm not sure GPL cuts the mustard either.

Like I said, I have no quarrels making code open source, but most licenses leave me feeling a bit "used an unappreciated". :)

Don't bother asking what or why you would use my framework for, over say something free like:
- Zend
- Symphony
- etc, etc

Leave the marketing up to me ;)

So, back to the original question...

What license are you aware of which might meet my requirements???

Thanks

Cheers :)

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:32 pm
by feyd
GPL, possibly even version three.

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:01 pm
by alex.barylski
Version 3...yikes...what happened to version 1 :P

You clearly have to stipulate the versions I guess?

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:07 pm
by feyd
Well, you include a copy of the license with the code, plus have it embedded in each source file... so yeah...

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:23 pm
by RobertGonzalez
LGPLv3 is about the only thing that is going to give you the locked down type of license you want.

Personally I like the Creative Commons Attribution license myself.

Re: Need a license

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:34 pm
by The Phoenix
Hockey wrote:I'm vaguely familiar with BSD, GPL, LGPL, etc...hopefully someone can shed some light on this subject for me...

I need a license that:
- Widely accepted as open source which programmers want to use
- Disuades FREE as in speech and beer and promotes FREE as in speech only
- Requires any changes, to be returned back to the community
The second point is tricky. There really isn't any way to "dissuade" people from making money from code. The best way to manage that issue is:

- Sell service and priority fixes
- Be the absolute best at your code
- Make sure you are incredibly responsive

The Free/Open source movement empowers users. If you don't serve their needs, they can go elsewhere. Thats the very attractive part of the equation that makes it worthwhile.

However, plenty of companies (Redhat, Mysql, etc) make plenty of money doing so without (much) licensing tricks.
Hockey wrote: I don't like LGPL as it's so loose, you can use it and never have to acknowledge ever using it. I want something in return for my labour as it's hundreds of hours I've spent so far and likely thousands more to come (testing, unit tests, docs, code, etc, etc...takes time).
Thats not true. You *must* include the source when distributing, and you *must* include the copyright notice for it. So you do have to acknowledge using it.
Hockey wrote: I want people who use the library freely to at least payback in someway:
- Code changes, enhancments, etc
- Acknowledgement of my software being used
Both the GPL and the LGPL fit well, depending on what your code is.
Hockey wrote: Because it's a framework, building ontop of it will likely require most of any application built on top to be released as open source as well. There is no using it externally as a library, so yes, the assumption is, you use it, your app needs to be open sourced as well.
That description implies the GPL. The LGPL isn't as forceful about impacting 'the rest' of the application.
Hockey wrote: If this is unacceptable, I think a nominal fee for commercial use is in order. :)
Mysql does that, as do other companies.
Hockey wrote: Being a framework obviously it's going to be extended, whether that code is then considered a core part of the library being extended (thus requiring you return that code to community) or whether your extending your application code is highly debatable. So I'm not sure GPL cuts the mustard either.
That issue (what constitutes linking) is definitely debatable, but as a heads-up, most of the cases so far have held that if the code can run independent of the library being there, and if the library can run independent of the main code, then its not included. That doesn't help a ton, but hopefully gives you some ideas.
Hockey wrote: What license are you aware of which might meet my requirements???
The closest, based on your description, would be the GPL.

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:41 pm
by alex.barylski
Everah wrote:LGPLv3 is about the only thing that is going to give you the locked down type of license you want.

Personally I like the Creative Commons Attribution license myself.
THAT'S the one I was trying to remember. :)

Dude thanks for that...from what I recall it was what I was after...

Why LGPLv3...I thought the whole purpose behind LGPL was to be more analogous with BSD style licensing where you pretty much can do what you please?

Re: Need a license

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:52 pm
by alex.barylski
The Phoenix wrote: The second point is tricky. There really isn't any way to "dissuade" people from making money from code. The best way to manage that issue is:
I don't care if anyone profits, but if they do I think it's fair that I do to. The point was not to dissuade people from making money, but instead if they plan on making money and not explicitly acknowledging me somehow (other than creds in source code) they should pay me a licensing fee as well.
The Phoenix wrote: However, plenty of companies (Redhat, Mysql, etc) make plenty of money doing so without (much) licensing tricks.
I read an article recently, that at least gave me the other impression (in regards to MySQL anyways). They make money off consulting because of the complexity of the thing, but most of their money comes from (not server hosting where it's being used as a library) but in companies packaging the software with their own software and not wanting to release their code as open source. I know that isn't quite true, but is the impression I was left with.
The Phoenix wrote:Thats not true. You *must* include the source when distributing, and you *must* include the copyright notice for it. So you do have to acknowledge using it.
That was kinf of a given. I don't know of any open source license that lets you do that. Some commercial software allows full re-branding but I have never seen open source license that allowed this.
That description implies the GPL. The LGPL isn't as forceful about impacting 'the rest' of the application.
GPL eh...point. :)
That issue (what constitutes linking) is definitely debatable, but as a heads-up, most of the cases so far have held that if the code can run independent of the library being there, and if the library can run independent of the main code, then its not included. That doesn't help a ton, but hopefully gives you some ideas.
That distinction makes it very clear then, that if you used the framework you must open source your application as well. It's a framework. Without it, code that uses it couldn't run independently.

The basic points I am trying to make is this:

1) Free for non-commercial use; giver
2) Used commercially, if you don't want to mention my name or acknowledge me or open source you own code, then you pay a fine. Simple.
The closest, based on your description, would be the GPL.
3 for 3...ok cool GPL it is... :)

Thanks for all of your input peeps.

Cheers :)

Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:35 pm
by feyd
"Profit" is such vague term. Profit can come in many flavors, many don't involve money.