Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Programming & Networking => Topic started by: Master of Reality on 31 August 2002, 21:01
-
which liscense to choose for my bobtime clock that 'we' will be developing:
GNU General Public License (GPL)
GNU Library or "lesser" Public License (LGPL)
BSD License
MIT License
Artistic License
Mozilla Public License(MPL)
Qt Public License(QPL)
IBM Public License
MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License)
Ricoh Source Code Publice License
Python License (CNRI Python License)
Python Software Foundation License
zlib/libpng License
Apache Software License
Voyida Software License 1.0
Sun Industry Standards License (SISSL)
Intel Open Source License
Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)
Jabber Open Source License
Nokia Open Source License
Sleepycat License
Nethack General Public License
Common Public License
Apple Public Source License
X.Net License
Sun Public License
Eiffel Forum License
W3C License
Motosoto License
Open Group Test Suite License
Zope Public License
University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License
Academic Free License (AFL)
Attribution Assurance License
Public Domain
of course there are some which i will obviously not be using, i just listed the available ones that SourceForge requires I use.
[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
After taking 3 fucking hours of reading most of those Licenses I haven chosen the obvious choice of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
I have submitted the project to sourcforge and within two business days i should get a reply.
-
I think it should be under the BSD license.
But it's your program.
-
doh, you should have use the LGPL, it lets major products link witht the bobclock
-
quote:
I think it should be under the BSD license.
Why, may I ask?
-
people who say that usually think that all the GPL stuff should be released under the BSD licence because they reckon it is selfish to not want people to steal your code, make money from it and walk all over you morally.
You should have used the LGPL as stated above.
-
Well he is using the GPL, so what's wrong with that?
-
only GPL software could use it. LGPL would be another alternative, but I think it should be under the BSD license because everyone should be able to use it, not just a select few.
-
er, that's the whole point. Why should people who aren't using the GPL be allowed to use GPL code?
The only reason to use the LPGL is if you are providing a free alternative to something that is already established but non-free, such as a library, and you want your free library to become more widely used than the proprietary version.
-
"Why should people who aren't using the GPL be allowed to use GPL code?"
Because they might be using another license for some reason (GPL isn't everything). It might be open source, just not GPLed. So LGPL/BSD should be used.
If it's a clock, I think everyone should be able to use it in their code.
Isn't that program just a few lines of code, anyway?
-
"GPL isn't everything"
I beg to differ. Why should anyone use any other licence? If I write Free Software I want to be sure that no-one is going to include it in anything slightly less-than-free.
Yes, it is only presumably a few lines and not really likely to be raped by Microsoft for inclusion in Bloat XP 2004 but it's the general principle I'm disagreeing with you on. The GPL is watertight so you know your code is safely Free.
-
actually, yes, the GPL should be everything. BSD licence be damned, those guys are too nice.
X Windows is a good example of what happens if you release stuff using the BSD licence or similar, you get nothing for writing it, but some other bugger can hijack your free code, change a few lines and then sell closed source versions of it for a shitload of money. not good.
-
Well that's true, but the point of the GPL's resitrctions isn't to protect programmers; it's to protect society. If you write Free software there's nothing to stop RedHat etc. using it in their distribution and paying you nothing for it, but society still gets the benefit as it remains free.
-
yes i agree of course, but this is also the case with the BSD licence. the difference being that you forfeit all rights to your own software if you use the BSD licence.
Also, even if society is one's main concern, we must of course always phrase these things in selfish terms to get people to take notice. people do not do things unless they can see the benefit to them.
-
this project will be bigger than just a clock. I plan to eventually have a calender, time server, etc.
What is the clock in linux Licensed as? GPL is it not?
I think that maybe i will change the license if it actually needs to be changed, but i doubt millions of other programs and such will want to use my clock.
-
And if they do? I admit it, maybe BSD isn't the best choice, but it would be used if I was in charge, just beecause I think a clock should be used by anyone, whatever license they may use.
-
How about Microsoft? Should they be able to use free software in their proprietary products? If you use these permissive licences like BSD-alikes you're not being 'nice', you're being irresponsible.
[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Microsoft can only use the bob time in there products. If the product which it is part of is also open source (is this correct?)
I think the GPL is better for this project... and should we use sourceforge?
-
If he uses the BSD licence Microsoft can do what the hell they want with it. And what does 'open source' mean? Software can be 'open source' (a bad term to use if you're really referring to Free Software) but not be Free. A licence that just stipulates, say, that derivatives must be 'open source' (not that the BSD licence even does that) is open to interpretation and loopholes, hence the GPL only allows derivatives to use the same licence. Although I believe Stallman is adding a small number of other Free Software licences to those allowed in the next version of the GPL.
-
yes, even Microsoft should be able to use it.
after all, it's a clock. But that's just my opinion.
-
What if he'd written, say, a radical new compresison algorithm; should that be released under a BSD like licence?
-
no. I'd either close source or release it under the GPL.
-
LGPL wasnt a bad idea. But BSD?? I dont want these closed source places to use my clock. Sure they can still use it, but it must be a separate thing from the actual OS and be opensource and still under the GPL.
-
well, now that this is settled, good luck.
By the way, a good way you could improve your project would be reading the 24 hour time from teh hardware clock, then converting it to "Bob time." That way you can reboot and get the correct time.
-
we have plans for that as well. This project will ahve many utilities for the 32 hour clock.
-
it sounds pretty intresting.. is there any way I could help?
-
well... there is much you can do. In 3 business days i should get a reply from sourceforge as to whether i can get my own project stuff there. Then you can join sourceforge and join the development team.
-
It should be a goal as to have new motherboards have the option of 24 hours or 36 hours. Once the bios supports it you know you are on your way.
-
Why not write out your own license? You'll just have to check it very carefully to insure there are no loopholes or anything.
-
I was going to suggest it. A modified version of Mozilla's License? A modified BSD one that doesn't let closed source software to incorporate it (sounds more like a modified LGPL, actually)? Anyway, I don't think licenses should be top priorety right not. I think quality code is (http://smile.gif) .
-
What language are you doing it in (Java?)? Maybe I can help...
-Dustin
-
quote:
Originally posted by TheQuirk:
I was going to suggest it. A modified version of Mozilla's License? A modified BSD one that doesn't let closed source software to incorporate it (sounds more like a modified LGPL, actually)?
Wouldn't work. A licence that says "You may only use this code in 'open source' software" is massively open to interpretation and won't stand up in court. Microsoft has made some code 'open source' (again, I stress that this is a bad term to use) but not free.
If everyone just used the GPL this wouldn't even be an issue.
-
Good point. Maybe "software that uses the following licenses" and then list approved licenses.
-
that would be a modified GPL. Instead of only GPL software can use it, it would say something like only MPL 1.1, GPL, LGPL, etc, etc. can use it, or whatever.
But i dont really care about the License right now, it can wait until anything actually happens.
-
quote:
Your project registration for SourceForge has been denied.
Project Full Name: 32 hour days
Project Unix Name: bobtime
Reasons for negative decision:
The project description you submitted was deemed inadequate for
purpose of project approval by the member of the SourceForge team who
reviewed your project registration. The project description you
submit is used to determine whether your project qualifies for
hosting on SourceForge.
Chances are high that one of the following cases is true:
1. You submitted a description which did not provide any description
of your project (i.e. you left this field blank or filled it with
garbage).
2. You submitted a description which did not clearly explain the
purpose of your project; simply restating the name of the project is
not adequate, in most cases. We often ask for additional details on
project registrations for games, web-based forum systems and content
management systems; how does your project differ from existing
projects?
3. You provided a very vague description for your project and did not
provide any details of how your software operates, what OS platforms
you intend to support, which programming languages you are using the
development of your project, or the graphical nature of your
application (whether your app is a command-line utility, X11-based,
GTK+ or qt-based, etc.).
In order to remedy this situation, please login to the
SourceForge.net site, then submit a support request. Subject for the
support request should be 'Project registration rejected'. The body
of the support request should state the UNIX name for your project
and an extended description of your project. Once your support
request is received, a member of the SourceForge.net team will review
your project registration. If you are not sure why your project has
been rejected, please submit a support request and ask; we'll be glad
to justify this initial rejection.
To submit a support request, first login to the SourceForge.net site,
then go to the following URL:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001 (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=1&atid=200001)
Questions or concerns regarding this matter should be directed to the
SourceForge.net staff by submitting a support request.
Thank you,
SourceForge.net support team
I will try again soon.
[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
There is always freshmeat, or you could put a CVS on your server.
-
i do like reshmeat.. wonder why i didnt think of it.
My webserver is kinda not workin until i get it to work (have you tried the Bob Hub lately?).
[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Master of Reality / Bob:
My webserver is kinda not workin until i get it to work
Hehehehe...
-
quote:
Originally posted by Master of Reality / Bob:
i do like reshmeat.. wonder why i didnt think of it.
My webserver is kinda not workin until i get it to work (have you tried the Bob Hub lately?).
[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Master of Reality / Bob ]
And when does that happen
-
i signed up at freshmeat, but havent registered the project yet. I will after i make a web page for botime on my webserver.