Which OS License do you prefer?

General Discussions
#1

Although I am setting up an internal repository for some of my “super secret” work, I have been giving a lot of thought to managing some of my more “general use” code. This will mostly be some of my basic programs I am using to learn and practice with for such things as LWGL, AI, etc. Since others may want to look at them at a later time when they’re usable or I may want to request help with problematic parts, I have been considering hosting options. I would rather not provide public access to my private repository and don’t want to maintain anything in two places. So…

I have deicded it would be good to setup a Sourceforge account and create a project for this “open” work. My question comes in that Sourceforge requires that I assign which OS license I would like to use for the Project. To be honest, I have never really given such an idea much thought. There are MANY licenses out there for managing OSS and I have never really needed to understand the differences to the point of deciding which one i want to use. That has now changed.

Although my initial intention was to use the GPL since it is the one I am most exposed to and familiar with, after some research I am leaning to the Mozilla Public License ( MPL ). The main reason for this is that, based on a few things I have read, the MPL allows inclusion of your MPL code in a program with proprietary code that is not considered derivitive of the MPL code and therefore NOT required to be released under the MPL.

Now, I’m not a lawer ( as I imagine most others here are not either ), but to me this means if I do work in one of these projects and develop a basic AI engine, I can keep that engine OS under the MPL and still use it as a component of a proprietary, commercial-release game as long as I provide proper notice of the use of the MPL code and its availability.

Any thoughts from others here with more experience with these licenses and suggestions / interpretations would be greatly appreciated.

References:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html

#2

If you want GPL + possibility to use in commercial projects, take LGPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
But our master-of-everyone, RMS, tells you you shouldn’t :
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

#3

I chose the BSD license for my code. I like the “Here’s the code. Do what you like with it, but give me some credit.” idea and I’m not really worried about people using my stuff in closed proprietary systems.

#4

BSD/MIT/DSM (dont sue me).

I dont bother looking at GPL code and LGPL is too fuzzy when it comes to java.

#5

(L)GPL is evil. I hate it.

#6

LGPL scares the be-jesus out of me - but I tend to decide based on how much I really want the tech.

BSD makes me feel warm and cosy.

Kev

#7

Why oh why is (L)GPL so evil ? What is so wrong about it ?

#8

Essentially it’s still unclear as to whether the difference in linking between Java and other more conventional languages (C/C++) “could” be used at a later date to claim a LGPL license violation. There was a great who-har on slashdot sometime ago that raises its head now and again:

FSF/GNU tried to calm fears by issuing this statement:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html

Which clouded the issue more and generally made a whole bunch of lawyers nervous. Personally, I haven’t seen it tested as yet (or GPL really for that matter). However, I know that most of the companies I deal with (and work for) will accept BSD in most cases but will try to arrange a seperate license for products/source generally licensed under LGPL (incidently they won’t touch GPL). Sometimes offering cash to secure a different license rather than trusting in the Java/LGPL “policy” and geting it for free.

If you’re not worrying about the corporate world or business risks generally then it shouldn’t really worry you too much.

Kev

PS. GPL isn’t evil - but it’s not something I want to do. I don’t really want someone who wrote a library I might use deciding whether or not I publish my source. In the same way they’re able to choose what to do with their code (how they license it, how they distribute it) - I should be free to do what I want with my source. As another act of free will I choose not to use GPL licensed libraries/code.

#9

GPL is evil because it very very deeply ties shared code into Free (as in speech) Software, and because the nutjobs in the GPL camp constantly bash other licenses as being “harmful to the cause”.
We just want to share code. We don’t give a crap about software being “Free” (even if we agree some things are good as Free, like operating systems).

Another HUGE evil with GPL is that it’s infectious. Anything that even TOUCHES GPL (ie if you use a GPLed jar file, or a GPLed dll, or even GPLed art) has to be GPL as well.
That has absolutely nothing to do with sharing code, and all about pushing the GNU nutjobs’ agenda on people who don’t fully realize what they’re doing, then end up having a very tricky legal situations on their hands.

GPL is very effective at what it does, and is useful for enforcing something you really think should be Free Software into remaining so. Like for operating systems.
But, seriously, GPLing, say, a vecmath library is just EVIL and HARMFUL.

#10

yeah I agree with Markus.

If you really want to share your work with the world, and arent looking to push the GNU agenda on others, use BSD.

I cannot use GPLd sutff in sun, but using BSD license stuff is easy.

Ofcourse the OTHER option is to skipa license all together and just release the code Public Domain, inwhichc ase anyone can do anythign with it. I use to release PD stuff long before the idea of “Open Source Licenses” even existed.

#11

Thanks for the good discussion so far. I know I can always come here for a variety of views. 8)

I agree w/ the talk of the hard-stand position that GPL takes. It’s really a good way to make something open and keep it that way, and has its place. However, based on what I’ve read so far and your inputs above I don’t believe it’s appropriate for game libraries, for example. I want to develop and offer parts of my own “library” as OS, but I do NOT want that to mean I cannot use those same parts in my closed-source game or that others should be worried about doing so.

The MPL appears to be written in such a way that my OS components can still be incorporated into close, commercial applications as long as credit is given and a link to the source code for those MPL’d components is provided. That seems pretty fair and direct to me.

I’m going back thru today or tomorrow and reading more on the BSD license, but if anyone here familiar with it can speak to it in those terms ( keeping the OS’d parts as OS and providing due credit without limiting commercial development ) I’d like to hear your interpretations / experiences.

As always, advTHANKSance!!

#12

as kev stated above the fsf itself has clarified the issues on the lgpl and java. it makes absolutely no difference if your lgpl-licensed library is written in c/c++ or java. so it shouldn’t be a problem to use it. i think the lgpl is a great license for libraries you want to release as free software but keep the opportunity for it to be used in proprietary applications.
if you want to use the mpl, you might consider to allow the gpl as an alternative license as stated in section 13 of the mpl. otherwise your library could not be used in gpl applications. and when you release something as free software, you don’t want to lock out users of the most common free software license, right?

#13

Personally, I like the LGPL more than any other licence. I don’t contribute to BSD style licenced projects since I like the share-and-share-alike philosophy of the LGPL without the project-wide viral nature of the GPL.

#14

I prefer MIT, or at most BSD for others code.
I use my own license for my own code.

BSD says don’t sue me if you’d damage his computer by your code, and make mention of original author.
MIT just says don’t sue me for my code, and your errors.
Anything less restrictive is in effect public domain.

GPL Is big no for closed source freeware. LGPL is less problem, however maintaining code in sync, or repairing others work is much better with BSD license.

#15

So not to start arguing with people’s religion…

But I have to take objection to this. BSD philosophy is “I want to share this.”

GPL philosophy is " I ONLY want to sahre with OTHERS who will do the same."

I see it as a form of arm twsiting and I find it distateful. I liek to make gifts of code, not clubs to force others into doing thinsg my way. As Ive told my wife about some of the crap her family pulls, “It aint a gift if it coems with strings. If ity coems with any epxectations, then its a business transaction.”

I dont feel like doing business the GPL way. But to each their own.

#16

Course public domain says “There is noone to sue because there is no owner oif this code at all” :wink:

#17

Of course you can still sue the author. (Otherwise all cracks would be quite legal)

#18

Hm. You can sue the author if the act of authoring or releasing it violated your rights (eg releasing “PD” rengineered code or oher people’s code.) Ofcourse you can use the auythor of somethign release udner MIT,BSD or any other license for that just as easily. So its really a 100% irerlevent point.

But if you release code PD and say “use at your own risk”, i doubt you can be hit with liability for what is done with it or the results there of.

shrug I could be wrong. Us torte law IS particualrly f**ked up./.