I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.

I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.

Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is L/GPL good?

All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of words; I'm just looking for simple advice.

[btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]

Cheers


-- 
Matthew Wilson

Author: "Imperfect C++", Addison-Wesley, 2004
    (http://www.imperfectcplusplus.com)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    (http://www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
Director, Synesis Software
    (www.synesis.com.au)
STLSoft moderator
    (http://www.stlsoft.org)

-----------------------------------------------------

Matthew wrote:
> I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly
> license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
> 
> Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is L/GPL
> good?
> 

LGPL is just as restrictive as the GPL when it comes to static linkage, so that's something to consider. Users will be forced to link dynamically if they don't intend to release their source.

I'm a big fan of BSD-style licenses meself.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:

> I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
> 
> I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
> 
> Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is L/GPL good?
> 
> All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of words; I'm just looking for simple advice.
> 
> [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
> 
> Cheers

Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...

--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
-- Software ID: <s/w id>
-- Version:     <version data>
-- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
--              All rights reserved.
-- Licence:
-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
-- warranty.
-- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
-- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
-- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
-- any damages arising from the use of this software.
--
-- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
-- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
-- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
-- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
--    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
--    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
-- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
--    the it must ...
--   a) be plainly be marked as such,
--   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
--   c) include this notice, unaltered.
--------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
11/Jun/04 4:46:54 PM

"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:cabl2v$chb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:
>
> > I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
> >
> > I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
> >
> > Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
L/GPL
> > good?
> >
> > All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
words;
> > I'm just looking for simple advice.
> >
> > [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
> >
> > Cheers
>
> Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...
>
> --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
> -- Software ID: <s/w id>
> -- Version:     <version data>
> -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
> --              All rights reserved.
> -- Licence:
> -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
> -- warranty.
> -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
> -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
> -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
> -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
> --
> -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
> -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
> -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
> -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
> --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
> -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
> --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
> -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
> --    the it must ...
> --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
> --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
> --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
> --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*

That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.

But thanks anway. :-)

Matthew wrote:

> I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
> 
> I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
> 
> Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is L/GPL good?
> 
> All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of words; I'm just looking for simple advice.
> 
> [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 

GPL and LGPL are good, but a bit restrictive.

I like the BSD License. Simple and efficient.

Cheers.

Bruno.

I've always liked the revised BSD license.  The one that doesn't require including stuff in documentation shipped with derived products.

Sean

In article <cabm3p$eon$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>
>"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:cabl2v$chb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:
>>
>> > I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
>> >
>> > I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
>> >
>> > Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
>L/GPL
>> > good?
>> >
>> > All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
>words;
>> > I'm just looking for simple advice.
>> >
>> > [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
>> >
>> > Cheers
>>
>> Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...
>>
>> --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
>> -- Software ID: <s/w id>
>> -- Version:     <version data>
>> -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
>> --              All rights reserved.
>> -- Licence:
>> -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
>> -- warranty.
>> -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
>> -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
>> -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
>> -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
>> --
>> -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>> -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
>> -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
>> -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
>> --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
>> -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
>> --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
>> -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
>> --    the it must ...
>> --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
>> --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
>> --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
>> --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*
>
>That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.
>
>But thanks anway. :-)
>
>

i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)

BSD, MIT, Artistic, etc..

--Steve

Matthew wrote:
> That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved
> list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project
> is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.
> 
> But thanks anway. :-)

You can specify "other" and scribble it in the remarks field, if memory serves.

There's a big list of the things at http://opensource.org

 -- andy

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:55:43 +0000 (UTC), clayasaurus wrote:

> In article <cabm3p$eon$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>>
>>
>>"Derek Parnell" <derek@psych.ward> wrote in message news:cabl2v$chb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:35:23 +1000, Matthew wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm just about to start a new, small, open source project which I hope to put into SF in a few weeks.
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering what are peoples' recommendations for a preferred SF-friendly license. I don't like GPL, or anything restrictive like that.
>>> >
>>> > Are there things significantly better than the BSD or Mozilla licenses? Is
>>L/GPL
>>> > good?
>>> >
>>> > All thoughts welcome, though we'd better agree not to start another war of
>>words;
>>> > I'm just looking for simple advice.
>>> >
>>> > [btw: this project is intended to end up with C++, D and Ruby mappings, so there's some small motivation for your advice. ;)]
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>>
>>> Here is a licence that I've been using with no complaints so far...
>>>
>>> --------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
>>> -- Software ID: <s/w id>
>>> -- Version:     <version data>
>>> -- Copyright:   <copyright notice to include authors' names>
>>> --              All rights reserved.
>>> -- Licence:
>>> -- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
>>> -- warranty.
>>> -- There is no guarantee that it will meet your requirements, or do what
>>> -- the authors claim it can do. If you choose to use this source, you do
>>> -- so at your own risk. In no event will the authors be held liable for
>>> -- any damages arising from the use of this software.
>>> --
>>> -- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>>> -- including commercial applications. You may alter it and redistribute it
>>> -- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
>>> -- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
>>> --    claim that you wrote the original software, if you didn't write it.
>>> -- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement of this is
>>> --    required to be embedded in the product's documentation and binaries.
>>> -- 3. Altered versions of this source, and works substantially derived from
>>> --    the it must ...
>>> --   a) be plainly be marked as such,
>>> --   b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
>>> --   c) include this notice, unaltered.
>>> --------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*
>>
>>That's good, but AFAIK SF requires that you use a certain one of their approved list, or go through a process of getting your license vetted. Since this project is really small and self-contained, I'd rather just go with a stock one.
>>
>>But thanks anway. :-)
>>
>>
> 
> i think it's called the zlib/png liscense, and yes it is approved by SF :)

Thanks. I got this from a friend and wondered about it origins.
-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia