In article <cng1ha$1gra$1@digitaldaemon.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...
>
>My own software is usually under the zlib/png license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

I like this one too.

seems that licenses are also a marketing venue for the product see: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

products or companies are displayed on the list.

Ant

Anders F Björklund wrote:
> 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.
> 

Richard Stallman may have the best intentions, but his policies do little(imo) to help software move forward.  His last sentence here is a complete lie.  Unless someone hacks into all the servers which host the original code, everyone has the EXACT SAME rights as the 'middleman'.

The two most popular pieces of open source software are both non-GPL( Apache and Mozilla ).  I dont see anyone hurting because these packages can potentially be modified and released as retail.

He talks about freedom then decides that freedom doesn't include selling closed software if one so desires.  Personally selling software is a great thing: programmers get to pay their mortgage, eat, send kids to school...

Personally I think the zlib license is the best.  It only covers what you do with SOURCE not binaries.

Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.

Charlie

In article <cnfu1s$1bds$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Ben Hinkle says...
>
>
>"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.
>
>

"Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:cng1ha$1gra$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 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)

I kindof wondered why some parts have the license they do.

> 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.

My goal (with D) is to make the world a better place. If someone (person A) takes my code and builds a closed-source product on it and people love that closed-source product then person A has made the world a better place. If they made it open source then the world would be in an even better place (most likely) but that is "gravy" in my opinion. If my license was restrictive enough that person A couldn't build that great product - for whatever reason - then the world is not a better place and I would have failed (or, I suppose, not suceeded as well as I could have). Getting some credit for making the world a better place would be nice but I trust the marketplace to take care of that.

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

agreed.

> 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.

me too.

> --anders

Charlie wrote:
> Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.

Uh-oh. That's quite politically incorrect.

I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;)

Seriously, though, GPL is too copyLEFT for my taste.

But the person who's doing the coding decides how it's licensed and there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.

> 
> Charlie



-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

>I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;)

Hehe yes thats easier on the ears.

>there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.

Thats true , and alot of them I use daily so I shouldn't bash it ( I don't know what I'd do w/o  my emacs :S ).

Charlie


In article <cngmb3$2fuv$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>
>Charlie wrote:
>> Im totally for public domain.  Leave GPL for the communists.
>
>Uh-oh. That's quite politically incorrect.
>
>I think you meant "Leave GPL for the socialists". ;)
>
>Seriously, though, GPL is too copyLEFT for my taste.
>
>But the person who's doing the coding decides how it's licensed and there's lots of fun software in the GPL world.
>
>> 
>> Charlie
>
>
>
>-- 
>Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
>http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/