I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
(instead of LGPL)

Is that a good idea?
Does it makes any difference?
Will you feel more confortable?

I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.

Ant

Ant wrote:
> I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
> (instead of LGPL)
> 
> Is that a good idea?
> Does it makes any difference?
> Will you feel more confortable?
> 
> I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
> 
> Ant

For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?

In article <cneb20$22hk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
>
>Ant wrote:
>> I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
>> (instead of LGPL)
>> 
>> Is that a good idea?
>> Does it makes any difference?
>> Will you feel more confortable?
>> 
>> I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
>> 
>> Ant
>
>For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?

Here's the legalese:

LGPL:     http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

jcc7

In article <cnfrau$17f8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>
>In article <cneb20$22hk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
>>
>>Ant wrote:
>>> I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
>>> (instead of LGPL)
>>> 
>>> Is that a good idea?
>>> Does it makes any difference?
>>> Will you feel more confortable?
>>> 
>>> I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
>>> 
>>> Ant
>>
>>For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?
>
>Here's the legalese:
>
>LGPL:     http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
>
>jcc7

I need to review all this. It's too complicated.
I might end changing to a different license that allows the
use and modification and distribution of the DUI in any form
(source or binary) but ensures the credit for the
initial development is not lost.
that would allow DUI to be distributed on the form
generated by digc.

I'll do my homework but I'm open to suggestions... :p

Ant

"Ant" <duitoolkit@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:cne9dg$20gr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
> (instead of LGPL)
>
> Is that a good idea?
> Does it makes any difference?
> Will you feel more confortable?
>
> I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
>
> Ant

I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will "do
the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for
staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of someone
stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading
licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is too
short to worry about that :-)
Plus with D so young I figure the easier it is to copy/paste code from
others the better.

In article <cnfscn$18r4$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ant says...
>
>In article <cnfrau$17f8$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>>
>>In article <cneb20$22hk$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Daniel Siegmann says...
>>>
>>>Ant wrote:
>>>> I think I'm changing DUI license to LGPL or Artistic.
>>>> (instead of LGPL)
>>>> 
>>>> Is that a good idea?
>>>> Does it makes any difference?
>>>> Will you feel more confortable?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think it really maters but that's how phobos will be.
>>>> 
>>>> Ant
>>>
>>>For those of us who don't know, what does the LGPL allow, and what does the Artistic license allow?
>>
>>Here's the legalese:
>>
>>LGPL:     http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.php Artistic: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
>>
>>jcc7
>
>I need to review all this. It's too complicated.
>I might end changing to a different license that allows the
>use and modification and distribution of the DUI in any form
>(source or binary) but ensures the credit for the
>initial development is not lost.
>that would allow DUI to be distributed on the form
>generated by digc.
>
>I'll do my homework but I'm open to suggestions... :p
>
>Ant
>
>

If that is what you want to do, take a look into the BSD license. From my understanding, there are two primary forms: BSD w/ and w/o the advertisement clause. The "no advertisement" one is the one gaining the most popularity because it is GPL compatible.

I believe that, as the original copyright holder, you can change the licensing terms on subsequent versions anyhow <but PLEASE don't take my word for it - look into it some more>.

Here's a handy little link: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~mrusin/licencomp.html

Ben Hinkle wrote:

> I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/

Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

> It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will "do
> the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for
> staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of someone
> stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading
> licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is too
> short to worry about that :-)

Copylefted software is copyrighted so that it can stay free (speech).
Otherwise, someone will eventually step in and stop those rights...

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html


The BSD license might be an acceptable middle grounds for you ?
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

--anders

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:cnfunf$1c8d$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ben Hinkle wrote:
>
> > I've become a fan of the ultra-simple public domain license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
>
> Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.

yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.

> > It doesn't enforce any authorship credit but I trust most people will
"do
> > the right thing" and since the original author has a big head-start for staking a claim to the code there isn't really that big a risk of
someone
> > stepping in and taking over something you wrote. I got sick of reading licenses and parsing out exactly what is ok and what isn't ok. Life is
too
> > short to worry about that :-)
>
> Copylefted software is copyrighted so that it can stay free (speech). Otherwise, someone will eventually step in and stop those rights...
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

But the public domain work is forever in the public domain so anyone can build from the same starting point and do whatever they want with it. If someone builds something non-free from it that's fine with me.

>
> The BSD license might be an acceptable middle grounds for you ? http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>
> --anders

Ben Hinkle wrote:

>>Public Domain means that you give up copyright claims to it.
> 
> yup - that's fine with me. I'm not writing Shakespeare.

:-)

I've noted that parts of D is Public Domain as well...
Such as phobos/std/stdint.d (or my very own stdutf.d)

The D front-end is otherwise either Artistic or GPL.
(the Digital Mars compiler dmd is not distributable)


My own software is usually under the zlib/png license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

Some is under GPL or LGPL, just because the original was...
(such as my Mac OS X ports of RPM and MikMod, for instance)

Says GNU: (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html)
> The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
> public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program
> and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows
> uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software.
> They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a
> proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified
> form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the
> middleman has stripped it away.


I have written both kinds, and proprietary software too.
It really depends on the project, which one to choose...

But it's a serious matter to consider, *before* it gets ugly.
On the other hand, it is probably off-topic for this list ?

So I'll stop here.
--anders

In article <cnfulg$1c6d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Dave says...
>

>If that is what you want to do, take a look into the BSD license.

yes, I was lookking at it...

>I believe that, as the original copyright holder, you can change the licensing terms on subsequent versions anyhow <but PLEASE don't take my word for it - look into it some more>.

that's on the sourceforge FAQ (or something) I'm gonna take their
word for it.

>Here's a handy little link: http://www.cse.psu.edu/~mrusin/licencomp.html

Ant