"New Copyleft License" released 222
Stephen Williams
writes "LinuxToday reports
that Bowerbird
Computing have released a new open source license
called the New Copyleft
License. Seems to be aimed at people who want to sell
their free software, rather than charge for support."
At the rate these licenses are proliferating,
soon there will be one license for every app. Does anyone
besides me think this is getting crazy?
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Amending GPL to include NCL, huh? (Score:2)
under the NCL. Did I miss something here? Where in the GPL does it say you can legally alter it
to include such a thing? Isn't that illegal?
...
There already is.... (Score:1)
Not DFSG-free. (Score:2)
This fails DFSG [debian.org] #1:
Missing the point (Score:2)
If you want to make money licensing code, fine, do it. You can always re-lease it under a free license later. But don't call code with a restricted license "free." It's an abuse of the term and an affront to the community.
Amending GPL to include NCL, huh? (Score:2)
As I (briefly) read it, this probably goes against the grain of the GPL's viral nature. One of the central tennets of the GPL is that GPL'd code can't be un-GPL'd, and such a preface would explicity say that yes, the code can be un-GPL's and be NCL'd instead.
I think this will cause Stallman et al. To say that this license if evil.
Personally, I think it is the most interesting license of the recent variants that we've seen. It's got problems, but it's not just a fake GPL with get-out clauses. It's a genuine attempt at a new kind of Open Source licence, and that's a good bit of diversity.
Anf finally, no, I don't see a problem with all these licenses. Evolution suggests that winners will emerge, and the poor ones will fail. Fine by me.
Missing the point (Score:1)
Point? (Score:1)
It seems to me an unintended, although necessary side effect of "free speech" software licenses is that they are free in the beer sense as well. I may have misread a clause or two, but this is an interesting attempt to draw a distinction between the two. Also, all the positive emphasis on the GNU GPL can only be a good thing. Heck, this practically is the GPL, only delayed for two years.
Argh. (Score:1)
Again I say, Argh.
Not DFSG-free. Well, not yet. (Score:1)
My recommendation (Score:1)
About time for a modular license? (Score:4)
* You'd select what you want to limit/allow
* It'd read it back to you in
a) Formal license form (text file)
b) English, with warnings (eg. "You're forcing people to release their own source code here")
c) A Geek-code style shorthand
Then, any savvy user could take one glance at the Geek code and understand the restrictions.
"This software is licensed according to the Open Source Modular License (URL here) with the following stipulations to be interpreted as described by the license:
FREE++ SRC- DIST+ COPY+++
Comments?
NCL is useless for free software community (Score:2)
Even the way in which NCL software reverts to GPL after two years is identical to the way Aladdin Ghostscript reverts to GNU ghostscript after one year. That doesn't make NCL software free software.
The NCL is not a copyleft as defined by the Free Software Foundation. The Aladdin Free Public License is not a free license as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Please do not be misled by these abuses of the terms "free" and "copyleft." Recognize these licenses for what they are: non-free licenses.
Open Source as bad as Closed? (Score:2)
People should definitly read/understand the licenses of the s/ware they are using. In general I think it's getting to the point where I will prefer well-known licenses like GPL over anything else. If I *need* to use the s/ware then I'll read the license etc, but to try and discourage the practice I'm now trying not to use s/ware which isn't under one of the traditional licenses.
Sound crazy?....GPL/BSD/Artistic/X licenses were fine before I see no reason to encourage people to muddy the waters further.
If the OpenSource people want to help they should make a license from the most used ones which meets the definition and then only allow the use of the mark if this license is used. Allowing people to use the mark because *they* think it meets the definition just isn't cutting it. Further ESR isn't a lawyer, what he thinks meets the definition and how the law might view the clauses could be vastly different.......
Hmmm... (Score:2)
> the source code comes with the purchase
> if you don't modify the source code, they provide 100% support for a limited amount of time (I think it is like a year)
> if you don't change the source code, you may purchase additional support
> as soon as you change even one character in any of the code, it is your code, you own it, and there is no support.
And I actually think this is a pretty good business model. It is the open but not free source, and they are basically saying they will back their code, because they know it works, but they won't back your code, because. . . it's yours!
Good replacement for software patents (Score:1)
Comparison (Score:1)
Good idea, bad implementation (Score:2)
However, this license is broken. Their stated intent in the preamble conflicts with the wording of the license.
They want the author to be able to make money by distributing the software. The license grants the author exclusive for-profit distribution rights, but lets anyone distribute the software for free. From a commercial standpoint, how is this different from GPL software? If I'm selling software, I still have to compete against distributors who charge $0 for the software. Customers would have no more reason to buy from me under this license than they would under the GPL.
I think it would make more sense (given their stated purpose) to give the author exclusive distribution rights for a year or two (before GPLing it), and require that the source code be included, and allow licensees to modify the source code.
They should have thought about this a little more before releasing it. On the other hand, maybe they figured that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow, including legal ones
commercial GPL? (Score:3)
Essentially, they want to maintain the ownership of their "open" code, and we want to maintain the freedom of the improvements that result from the opening of that code. I think that's the issue that ESR, and BP and the other "champions of open source"
Web-based customizable license (Score:1)
web-generated license telling them what the
packager or person who gave them the software
can do with it. The license also says which clauses can be added/removed or where to find
new clauses and register on the web.
If you don't like the license you've got in your
hands then go to that server and re-generate a license with your own selections + ID number.
It's good for developers because it helps them get
in touch with users and keep some stats.
It's good for users because they hopefully can find a solution which pleases them.
It still lets everybody see the source but specific parts can be subject to different
permissions.
If banner ads are too slow, turn them off! (Score:1)
Then turn off the ads. See http://www.junkbusters.com [junkbusters.com] for more details. Substituting a 1x1 transparent GIF for each ad does wonders for download speeds :-)
Missing the point (Score:2)
A good example is GhostScript. They license under a different license, then eventually re-license under the GPL. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't pretend to have a "public license" when they really don't have one.
No doubt about it, every author has the right to license her own work any way she sees fit, but this pretentiousness about "public licenses" has got to stop.
I'll never forget a certain (nameless) "open source" guru who once wrote me: "We can't let Richard Stallman hold us back any more." Well, nameless one, this crap is the result.
Want my advice? I believe the moral thing to do is license your software as you see fit, and it you want to then switch it to free software, use a free-software license later. Don't pretend.
Empty Promise (Score:1)
Sure, the restriction is lifted for the original version that was released two years ago, but that code will be awfully stale after two years.
Web-based customizable license (Score:1)
The software would compare the license you had designed (and in the case of a user, the license you had retrieved) and describe the nature of the license informally, and show comparisons with other licenses and software, whether it fulfils the requirements of Open Source, whether it includes all of the stipulations of the GPL, etc.
The possibilities are endless.
I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, so I want to tell the site what I mean, and then let it turn it into legalese. I also want my users to see at a glance what I'm getting at with the license and compare it to other software/licenses they know and use, and also have the option to retrieve the full legal document.
License Proliferation (Score:3)
You're missing the point (Score:1)
While certainly not an RMS-approved idea, this is at least a reasonable way to ensure that your software will be "truly" GPL after a period of time.
Aladdin's Ghostscript does the same thing; which is why everybody is a year or two behind the latest version...
Mark
MS Linux (Score:1)
"New MS Linux, all the power of Linux without the messy source code. No need to worry about non-Microsoft programmers 'fixing' our (errr... YOUR) operating system!"
It just doesn't make sense.
Dangerous License (Score:2)
I call this license dangerous because, while it pretends to be a Free license, it deliberately interferes with the redistribution of its software, one of the three pillars of Free Software.
Here's a hypothetical example, lets say the NCL becomes popular. There are fourty commonly used NCL packages out there. None of the authors are greedy, they just want $1 per copy sold for their two years. If a company like RedHat were to include these popular packages, the cost of their distribution will have gone up from $50 to $90. This will hurt sales, with no increase in their profit, thus hurting the free software community (a little).
Worse, when CheapBytes goes to repackage this version of RedHat, they will have to make their own arrangement with each of the authors, and their distribution will have gone up from $2 to $42, probably heigher, because they will need to hire someone just to manage all these agreements. This will destroy them, companies like them, and seriously harm the entire free software community.
Unencumbered redistribution is part of what makes Free software Free. This license mocks the community while asking us to accept them. I say throw them on their ear.
But that's the whole idea... (Score:1)
The idea of this license is to delay this clause for a couple of years so that the author can "try" to make a few bucks on it before it becomes truly open source...
GPL + LGPL withstood the test of time (Score:1)
Comparison (Score:1)
Your best bet is to use either a BSD-style license of the GPL. Most of the other licenses that abound have been custom tailored for a specific company and product. With BSD licensing and the GPL, you also have the advantage that more people will tent to know the basic tenets of the license.
The differences between the GPL and a BSD-style license generally relate to reuse of your code. GPLed code must always remain GPLed. BSDed code may be made proprietary or included into other codebases with different licenses.
--Phil (Personally, I prefer the GPL. Once free, always free.)
Can't ammend the GPL (Score:1)
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
You can probably release a program with a license of "You must follow the GPL as given in the file COPYING with the following changes:", and have the terms of your license an ammended GPL. This will confuse people, and licenses are confusing enough. You're better off finding a license that suits you better, or writing your own.
You certainly cannot alter the terms of someone else's GPL software. Only the copyright holder can put a license on software. You can't add restrictions under the GPL, and you can't remove restrictions without relicensing.
Certainly, but (Score:1)
commercial VS free software (Score:1)
I think that there is a fondamental diffrence between the two that we have seemed to have forgoten lately.
Sure, commercial software has to meet deadlines and stuff, but, it meets peoples needs. For example, just imagine your grandma recompiling a kernel or something.
The advantage to it is that it is, most of the time easier to use and configure.
On the other side, free software tends to be more "fun" to play with, and, sometimes, it just doesn't work right.
The point is, it shouldn't just be about giving the sources away or not, it should be about getting an easy to install package that does the job right the first time and that can be configured to the exact user's needs (for an example, I use gnumeric, and I am french speeking. Unless I play with the sources for a couple of days, I will never get it to work in french...)
Papi
PS: Excuse my poor english
Amending GPL to include NCL, huh? (Score:1)
The problem with doing this is that your specially modified license will no longer be compatible with the ordinary GPL, thus it will not be possible for you to use code under the ordinary GPL in your project.
Not DFSG-free. (Score:2)
The NCL states: "You MAY NOT distribute this work for profit as an executable or in object form".
Does anybody else remember a little thing that programmers like called "source code"? The NCL doesn't appear to restrict source distribution, just binary. Thus, the DFSG only chokes if it defines "software" solely as "binaries". If, however, it includes "source code" in its definition of "software", there's no inherent conflict.
Have you even looked at the NCL? (Score:1)
The NCL is intended for programmers who wish to make a livingout of writing free software but have no desire (or ability) to offer consulting services.
To encourage cooperation between all free software developers however you should preface the GNU GPL by stating:
The entire Section 5 is labeled Integrety of Free Software.
It is clear that they are trying to piggyback on the Free Software Community, while putting a monkey wrench in both the terminology and business plans of Free Software companies.
Irreconcilable (Score:1)
Those are irreconcilable aims. Companies need to understand that things just don't work the same way in the free-software (my RMS alligience slips out) world as they do in the proprietary world. They can't have it both ways, and neither can we.
Open Source as bad as Closed? (Score:1)
Missing the point (Score:1)
Maybe RMS should copyright the term "Copyleft" since it is his term,
I think you mean trademark, you can't copyright a single word. I think he can legitimately trademark the term as far as use in the computer industry goes.
Man, these licenses are doing my head in. Must be a corporate conspiracy like those guys in suits on the bus and the barcodes and the CONTRAILS... muttermuttermutter.
Try tinfoil around your head. I've found it works wonders. A real fashion statement
Exaclty. (Score:1)
The Artistic license supposedly has several flaws in it, and is not widely used. I haven't looked at it in detail, but you should before licensing any code under it. (This is true of any license, I suppose).
Linux licensing HOWTO (Score:1)
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
shhhh (Score:1)
This is bad, bad, bad! (Score:1)
There is very little difference between this
and the policies currently followed by Microsoft,
IBM et al. If you shell out a (very large)
bundle, you will have access to the source code
of Microsoft products. Its true that you will get
slapped with an NDA, and hence you wont be
allowed to redistribute, but your customers could
make the same deal with Microsoft that you could,
and thus obtain the source.
Indeed, under the NCL, why would anyone want
to contribute any code to software written by
someone else? The other person would end up
making the profit for work that you did.
If you want to charge for a product, charge
for whatever you think it is worth, or charge for
support. Charging for the source code goes
against all the tenets of free software. IMHO,
this new license must be quashed like the termite
that it is - designed to bring down the house of
free software.
Re: Hmmm... (Score:1)
Interesting that the success of failure of the "free" software movement is being gauged by the profits of a commercial company...
Did you see the "a little" there. The success or failure of the Free Software movement is not dependant on companies like RedHat, but they help. Therefore, hurting RedHat Software hurts the Free Software Community (a little).
I notice you refrained from commenting on my point about CheapBytes, where I said that the harm to them will greatly harm the Free Software community. Companies like Cheapbytes allow anyone with access to a computer affordable access to Free software. Downloading hundreds of files over the internet is not affordable to most of the world, who pay per minute for connection time.
Face it! There is no sustainable, viable economic model under which a software industry can exist under the free software banner! You can't support a world economy with collegiate warez d00dz' pipe dreams!
You are stating opinion with neither evidence nor respect. I say there is, and I say companies like RedHat, Walnut Creek, Cygnus, VA Research and Cheapbytes prove it. They are all profitable. Whether or not they are sustainable has to pass the test of time, but I say they are.
Ah... that felt good.
Happy now? Try posting comments which you are proud to put your name on. That feels much better than anonymous flamage.
Amending GPL to include NCL, huh? (Score:2)
True, but the license differences ensure that different programs can't "interbreed". Which is a shame. Mozilla and KDE or GNOME could have beautiful offspring.
In times of confusion, review your values. (Score:2)
I values freedom of information and cool stuff that works well.
This basically makes me a GNU sort of guy.
What do I do about all these coporates jumping on my bandwagon? Nothing. I use stuff that meets what I value, and rememebr that we got this far without them. They didn't matter then and don't matter now, at least not in a way that guides what I do.
If what this community has done is so great, then the last thing we shoudl do is change as soon as somebody (or some corporation) agrees that it's great, but wants to change it.
People like Linux becuase it's good. If we keep making good things, world domination will happen naturally. If people don't like what we make, chances are we still will and we'll have the stuff we like.
What more do you want?
The NCL is not what I like, so I won't use it. I'll just go back to doing what I did before and save my public displays of opinion when somethat that actually tries to stop me comes up. (Like the US government's ideas about privacy or regulating the net.)
NEw liscences, new apprioaches, new coproate ideas about our community,... they all fall under the utlimate equalizer that is the internet. It will be only as big as it is cool in the eyes of the netizens.
--
Not DFSG-free. (Score:2)
"distribution" here of course refers to the "Free distribution" that #1 is about.
DFSG #2 are part of the reason why e.g. Pine and qmail are not DFSG-free. Debian has source packages of them in non-free (pine396-src, qmail-src).
Not DFSG-free. (Score:1)
It refers to source code and binaries. The DFSG requires both to be distributable. Remember that Debian is a binary distribution.
Aaargh! s/NPL/NCL/g (Score:1)
But that's the whole idea... (Score:2)
It's termed a "Copyleft", but to me "copyleft" always meant "GPL, or another free software license that uses copyright law to prevent hoarding into proprietary software". But NCL isn't a free license.
Look at what Stephen Williams says in his submission: Seems to be aimed at people who want to sell their free software. But software licensed under it isn't free software.
Re: (Score:2)
Hungarian License Notation (Score:1)
--JZ
GPL & LGPL (Score:1)
In short a free distribution under (the spirit of) GPL but with the adendum that the 'original' copyright owner may (for a fee or not) licens the code (with changes and contributions) acording to the added rights off LGPL (linking in to commersial and propriatary programs).
This means that contributers to the code give this extra rights to the 'original' copyright owner. That is not more then the contributer gives to the whole world under LGPL!
This is much what Netscape done with the exeption that ther 'freeware' licens is closer to the spirit of LGPL then GPL (to bust ms dominance as commersial platform I guess).
This will make it posably to use the code without restriction in free projekts.
And that you may make profit from the code by using it in commersial 'valuadding' products (wich migth or might not be semi free).
The big advantage over LGPL is that ther is a biger reason to build free aplikation and that if the code is still used in an commersial applikation, then some of the profit comes back to the original autors (or FSF or SPI or who ever is the 'original' copyrightovner).
The advantage over GPL is that passability to commersial use is still ther (or att least clerer stated ;-).
priveleged copyrigtowner is possably a better term then 'original' copyrightowner. It chould be the original author or someone the original author chose to donate the right to.
Is what I try to say at all andurstandable? I think a community effort to fill this gap betwin LGPL and GPL would be better then everyone making ther own licens ;-)
(and I think a licens like this would be better for project like GTK then the LGPL licens)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
"Free" is one thing ... (Score:1)
I have a serious problem with the assumption that "free" software automatically refers to "free according to the FSF", because it seems to me that the GPL sacrifices important freedoms in some areas in an attempt to preserve it in others.
But the term "copyleft" was specifically invented by RMS, at least as far as I know, and it's discussed extensively at the FSF web site [fsf.org], so I regard RMS and the FSF as having a legitimate claim on the word.
As near as I can see, this license would not be regarded by the FSF as a "copyleft", but they're the ones to be the judge of that.
There is, however, a crying need for a standardized open software license that simultaneously makes source available for hacking, allows contributing hackers credit for their work, does not require the original source (person or company) to sacrifice all of their intellectual property rights, and protects the originating source against litigation in this crazy lawyer-ridden society. Netscape, IBM, Apple, and Sun are all struggling with this, and doubtless more is to come. If O'Reilly wants to host another Grand Summit, this would be a good topic. The sooner we have a uniform "Commercial Open Software" license that we all understand, the sooner we can stop quibbling about this nonsense and get back to hacking.
Craig
My personal opinion is that licenses should first be read as moral obligations, and after that they should be gone over by lawyers. -- Linus Torvalds, March 1999
The problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:2)
It disregards the role of the unpaid collaborator who would add features to your program, because the initial developer has an advantage that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain nor circumvent. This is a disincentive to the unpaid collaborator because instead of contributing work to the community they are now contributing work that someone else will be paid for no matter what they do. Contrast this to indirect revenue methods. If I don't like Red Hat, I can circumvent them and make my own Linux distribution, obtaining what would have been their profit for myself for some (possibly small) number of customers. Consider this in the case of a product like Linux, where the initial developer contributed a small amount of the total work and his services as an architect and coordinator, while the lion's share of the work was done by others. It makes collaborative development unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own revenue capture, you would soon have a too-expensive product or a paperwork and procedural mess. Who decides how much each developer gets? Who decides who is worthy as a developer? Do they all make that decision for themselves and then compete with each other in some way? It gives the initial developer a lock that causes a disincentive to "fork" a product. If Linus had direct revenue-capture from Linux and I decided to make a fork of it because I felt I could engineer it better, I might be able to do an excellent job, but Linus would still be compensated for my effort.
So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
The Problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:3)
This license and others like it can be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct Revenue-Capture for the Initial Developer."
It disregards the role of the unpaid collaborator who would add features to your program, because the initial developer has an advantage that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain nor circumvent. This is a disincentive to the unpaid collaborator because instead of contributing work to the community they are now contributing work that someone else will be paid for no matter what they do. Contrast this to indirect revenue methods. If I don't like Red Hat, I can circumvent them and make my own Linux distribution, obtaining what would have been their profit for myself for some (possibly small) number of customers. Consider this in the case of a product like Linux, where the initial developer contributed a small amount of the total work and his services as an architect and coordinator, while the lion's share of the work was done by others.
It makes collaborative development unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own revenue capture, you would soon have a too-expensive product or a paperwork and procedural mess. Who decides how much each developer gets? Who decides who is worthy as a developer? Do they all make that decision for themselves and then compete with each other in some way?
It gives the initial developer a lock that causes a disincentive to "fork" a product. If Linus had direct revenue-capture from Linux and I decided to make a fork of it because I felt I could engineer it better, I might be able to do an excellent job, but Linus would still be compensated for my effort.
So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Next Generation Linux Developer ??? (Score:1)
Licensing FAQ (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Not entirely missing the point (Score:1)
True, but buyers/users of your software have no guarantee that you will. The advantage of NCL is that it spells out precisely when the software will become totally free (ie, two years after release).
There are advantages here: the fiscal incentive to create new/better software remains, yet there's a cap so that what might otherwise be kept closed and proprietary forever will become open.
Sure, there'll still be always-closed software, and GPL'd software, but at the margins this sort of license should increase the total supply of free software.
(Not that the license doesn't have its problems -- the details of stewardship might stand some refinement.)
The problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:2)
What we really can't tell in advance, though, is which of these putative issues will prove to be a real problem and which will remain purely theoretical. And until we have several years of experience with different "commercial open software" licenses, any conclusions about how the hacker community (or the lawyer community, or indeed the user community) will behave under conditions X, Y, and Z will be purely speculative.
Netscape, after a year, seems to offer a couple of tentative observations:
All we can really do is enjoy the new flood of source washing in and try not to spend too much time quibbling about exact license terms. (By and large, corporations will listen more closely to the lawyer they're paying hundreds an hour to than to J. Random Hacker anyway, and there's not much we can do about that.) It'll be fascinating, though, to watch the commercial license situation shake itself out. But it'll take patience.
Craig
The problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:1)
No magic bullet? Did they expect microsoft to roll over and die or something? Instantly? The jury is still out.
Thanks
Bruce
The point is: "a piece of the action" (Score:1)
Software licensed under the NCL may be freely given away, but if you want to make a profit off of redistributing it, you owe the author(s) a piece of the action. How big a piece is subject to negotiation.
Given the folks here who've griped about Red Hat, et al. making some bucks off of free software, I'd think this license pretty popular. Not, of course, to the strange idealists who seem to think that software development is a Holy Cause and don't want it tainted by anybody making any money (ugh, root of all evil, don't you know) from it.
How is this different from Ghostscript? (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
Uhhh, closed source licence..? (Score:1)
Was I the only one that had immediate red flags at the beginning, where it said you can't distribute modified versions of the license?
Seems to me that most Open Source software licenses are free themselves.
NCL is *NOT* useless for free software community (Score:2)
I would much rather work on my hobbies than my professional stuff, but I need money. So, in the few minutes of free time that I have, I hack up a few little GPL'd programs.
If I could sell those programs, I might work a lot harder on them, and not spend so much time at work writing proprietary code. The problem is nobody wants my code unless it's GPL'd. It's a religion. Must... have... GPL.... Look at what happened to Qt. It had a free license (not GPL free, but free enough for free software to benefit.) Nobody wanted Qt until it went QPL, and most people still don't like it.
We wouldn't have Ghostscript without licenses like that (AFPL).
Does it really matter if the FSF or Debian say it's not free? It will be.
This license is great because it *forces* those that use software licensed under it to give back to the community instead of people just leeching off of the community. Granted, it needs a little revising, but the spirit is good. Feed the coders; They give you free stuff.
Another problem with NCL (Score:2)
Anyway my question is, how will this thing work in real life? Say I write SuperWidget 1.0 under the NCL, Bob comes along and modifies it, Larry modifies that. Then Will Fences decides he wants to make a commercial app from Larry's code: does he have to pay Bob and me, too? Seems like that could snowball quickly, making the license something businesses would want to avoid, not embrace.
--B
NCL != Aladdin FPL (Score:1)
The NCL license provides for (re)selling, so long as the original author(s) is(are) compensated.
(The GPL, of course, provides for (re)selling without any compensation to the authors, as long as source is made available.)
Licensing FAQ (well worth a read) (Score:1)
Presumably the printed version will include the actual license text; oddly, it's not as easy to find current, definitive versions of the various licenses on the 'net as one would think (or at least I've not found it as easy as I thought). Are you planning to add them to the page?
[slightly off-topic] The summary of the Great Qt License Struggle was interesting but I found its presentation a little one-sided (quite legitimately; it's your book, after all). In the great 'net tradition of presenting all eighteen sides of a two-sided question, do you know if Troll Tech has posted anywhere a (non-PR sanitized) account of the process from their point of view?
Craig
Feed the coders; They give you free stuff. (Score:1)
This license will have very little, if any, negative effect on the supply of GPL'd software from those already writing GPL'd software.
It will have a positive effect (how big remains to be seen) on the supply of (ultimately) GPL'd software from those currently not writing GPL'd software because they can't afford to (or think they can't). It might, for example, encourage some shareware authors to release source.
you missed the point (Score:1)
Good idea, bad implementation (Score:1)
This is true. However, this situation doesn't seem to bother Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE, etc, who are all competing against potential distributors who could charge $0. It would of course be a factor in negotiating the payments to the software author(s).
Agreed (Score:1)
A fact that does need to be addressed, however, is that not everyone wants their software under the same set of terms. The GPL isn't for everyone, no more than the BSD license is, or the MPL, etc.
A good approach, I think, would be a single yet variable license. Say, the XPL. Then one talk in terms of various flavors of this one license, e.g.:
XPL Level 1 - free for noncommercial use
XPL Level 2 - modifications must be distributed as patches
XPL Level 3 - source to modifications must be published
XPL Level 4 - code can be made proprietary
Something along those lines. We would hear, "Xapp will be released under Level 4 XPL," "Apple will announce today it is changing the OSX license from Level 1 to Level 3," etc.
If all the big players in OSS put their heads together-- everyone from the FSF to the OSI, with a good team of lawyers to back them up-- this could happen.
Good idea, bad implementation (Score:1)
So no one can make a living writing free software? (Score:1)
We wouldn't have Ghostscript without licenses like that (AFPL).
I'm not so sure about that. The programming effort that Ghostscript entails is a fraction of the effort that many other free software projects entail. There's just no way to tell how ghostscript "might" have developed without the AFPL.
Good replacement for software patents (Score:1)
Geek Code Notation (Score:1)
;-)
Amending GPL to include NCL, huh? (Score:1)
changing a few lines, and calling it your own
license is akin to taking somebody else's code,
changing a few lines, and calling it your own.
If nothing else, it's plagairism.
At least, that's how I have always read the GPL.
In my younger days, I once licensed a program
under the GPL simply because it was easier than
coming up with my own licensing terms, and I
have always assumed that was part of the point.
Bruce, re-read the license. (Score:2)
It clearly does not "disregard the role of unpaid collaborator". Depending on how the steward chooses to divvy up the money (if any), the all collaborators are paid. If not, the collaborators are free to choose a new steward who will divvy up the money they way they want it divvied. (Although the exact details of this seem to me one of the weaker areas of the license.)
You ask "who decides how much each developer gets?" The license answers this very clearly: the steward, who is elected by the developers.
Take the Linus/Linux example which you raise. If Linus (as steward) chose to keep all the money himself, no doubt an election for a new steward would quickly occur. The new steward might decide that Linus gets no more money, since his contribution in terms of lines of code is small compared to the total size.
Of course, the details on a project with that many contributors gets hairy very quickly, which is why I think this is the real weakness of the license. But that's a detail.
If you're going to attack this license, read it and attack it on its real flaws, not on some strawmen you conjure up. A license something like this can significantly add to the availabilty of free software, by encouraging those who would not release under GPL or BSD. Let's fix its real flaws, instead of wasting breath on imagined ones.
-- Al
Licensing FAQ (Score:1)
--
Bruce,
Thanks for putting up a resource like this. For a while, I have been
looking for a site I can point people to when they have questions about
which license they should use. I do have a couple of nitpicks though.
I was under the impression that the MPL was intended to be used by the
general public and not just for Netscape. Last I checked, the MPL is
just the same as the NPL except that it allows the Initial Developer to
be someone other than Netscape so the original copyright holder would
still have special rights over the code. The MPL/NPL seem to be better
explained than other licenses (GPL/LGPL in particular) and don't solely
rely upon the, IMO, vagueness of copyright law to make their points. I
was quite surprised at the recommendation to avoid using the MPL.
In the list of questions, you left out one that I'm frequently asked:
"Do you want people to use your code without being able to sell it
commercially?" A lot of people seem to mistakenly think that GPL will
prevent their code from being sold which is definitely not the case. It
doesn't look as though any of the OS licenses would apply in this case
though (except maybe the Artistic license).
Also, perhaps you should be a bit clearer on what you mean by
"modifications". The MPL/NPL specifically define modifications to be
changes to the original files or new files that contain code from the
old files. In this case, you cannot make modifications private as you
claim in the document. Only new files that do not contain any Original
code can be made private. It's sort of a nitpick but it will confuse
some people who were previously told that MPL/NPL would insure that the
code they contribute will always remain open. The contributed code
placed under the MPL/NPL will always be open, but it can be used in a
closed product.
License Proliferation (Score:1)
Uhhh, closed source licence..? (Score:1)
If you want to change the terms invent your own license. But better, don't: just use one of the existing ones.
The Problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:2)
The problem with the lack of a direct revenue capture system is that it discourages commercial companies from investing large amounts of money into upfront research (for open source projects anyway).
How many companies are going to invest millions of dollars into research if the only revenue they can see in the future is from support? New companies coming in have the advantage of not having to recover the cost of developing the product in the first place.
Yes, its possible for companies to survive and propser by selling support for GPL'd products, but these companies are nearly always established after a lot of free time has been donated where the risk is a lot lower that a useful product is not eventually developed.
The lack of a direct revenue capture system may in fact discourage funding for new innovative development.
Licensing FAQ (Score:1)
Thanks
Bruce
Re: commercial VS free software (Score:1)
There is a strong difference between proprietary software and free software, but keep in mind that proprietary software can be non-commercial just as Free software can be commercial.
Ease of use and ease of installation are very important, and commercial developers do seem to be a little more willing to put in the effort to polish the ease of use and installation of the software they make. The Free commercial software community shows that you don't need to sacrifice the Freedom of the package in order to get the polish.
Read the part about 'stewardship'. (Score:1)
Will only has to negotiate with one person, so from that point of view businesses won't have a problem with it. Whether the project breaks down over infighting over who gets how much is another question, and that's the weakness I see in the license. You'd need to have some sort of covenant amongst the developers agreed upon ahead of time (and which new contributers would need to agree to) for the project to work.
Not quite the free and easy world of BSD, or even GPL, but it might encourage those who have kids to feed. And SuperWidget 1.0 becomes GPL'd two years down the road anyway.
(That two years may seem like a long wait for projects that are in the "release early and often" development stage, but isn't too bad for more mature products.)
License Proliferation (Score:1)
Yes, but there is nothing mandating that those changes had to be made public
I consider this a good thing. I rather not be told (and forced) how to think. I rather be generous out of my own good nature--I am soooo modest
I am starting to see the BSD license as the Christianity of today: be good since it is the right thing to do.
Concerning the GPL, I see it representing the Christianity of a few centuries ago: be good or else the rack. No one expects the GNU Inquisition!
Sean Farley
The problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:2)
Those are two separate issues. Netscape will never be able to incorporate GPL code because of crypto restrictions. Our lawyers have agreed to let us take baby steps toward fixing the second problem by dual-licensing the JavaScript engine. If it works out well we may be allowed to dual-license more of the code eventually.
(Keep in mind that it has taken a year to get this far, and that we now have a new set of lawyers to deal with.)
proprietary defined (Score:1)
proprietor An owner, as of a building or business.
That should answer your question. 8^) At any rate, it's not the case that "GPL'd software must be within a specific group" anyway, unless that group is defined to encompass "anybody that abides by the license," which means "every user of the software", with no exceptions.
Argh. (Score:1)
GPL is actually more hooking than most others. Pretty much anything that touches GPL becomes GPL. Which makes sense. It seems it least that RMS wants to have every line of code on the planet available under the GPL.
The GPL is actually fairly entangling (which is why I won't use it, it binds my hands as a programmer... so much for freedom)
"Free" is one thing ... (Score:1)
Why?
I mean that as a legitimate question. In what ways are intellectual property rights on software advantageous? How do they make sense in the context of what we call free software? I can understand the free point of view, I can understand the proprietary point of view, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of hybrid. That baffles me. Can you explain?
not at all! (Score:1)
You can still copy the source as you see fit and distribute binaries just like you could under the GPL. You can modify the source however you like, and distribute the modified version. The only new restriction is that you (being someone other than the author) can't sell the software for a profit.
I don't see how this violates the spirit of free software. If someone wants to make a profit by selling my software, I don't see why it is unreasonable for me to get a share of that profit.
A few people can. (Score:1)
For most folks who contribute free software, it's a hobby, or something their boss doesn't mind as long as they get their real work done.
Nobody's going to get rich writing NCL'd code, either, but the prospect of getting a piece of the action if somebody else decides to sell it will certainly make it easier to, say, justify to the wife when she asks why you're spending all that time in front of the computer.
Proprietary (Score:1)
If you say so.
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Sounds like a pyramid scheme (Score:1)
I start the scheme, I write some software program and license it under the NCL. I charge $2 to sell it to others. Alice buys the software, makes a change to it, sells it for $2. She, by the license, sends back a portion of her money to me. She sells Bob a copy. Bob makes a change, sells his copy. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Time to write that NCLed "Hello World" program.
Precisely! (Score:2)
Contrary to what Bruce suggested, this liscence compensates the "unpaid contributer" more than the main author. According to the liscence each author (meaning anyone who has contributed code to the work) gets an equal vote on who the steward is, so noone has the leverage to keep most of the profits to themselves.
Of course, there do seem to be problems with this liscence regarding the details. I could get my friends and family and pets to submit code I wrote so that we could get a bigger share of the vote (and thus the pie). But I suppose the other authors could always fork the project and refuse to let me or my family and pets submit any code, once they realized what I was doing...
Bruce, re-read the license. (Score:2)
Bruce
Precisely! (Score:2)
Just think about how the taxes would be handled. What a book-keeping mess.
Thanks, but I'm going to continue writing GPL-ed stuff and not get into squabbles over who gets paid what.
The Problem with Direct Revenue-Capture Licensing (Score:3)
> This license and others like it can >be classsified as "Mandiatory Direct >Revenue-Capture for the
> Initial Developer."
> It disregards the role of the unpaid >collaborator who would add features to your >program, because the
> initial developer has an advantage >that the unpaid collaborator can neither obtain >nor circumvent.
> This is a disincentive to the unpaid >collaborator because instead of contributing work >to the
> community they are now contributing >work that someone else will be paid for no matter >what they
> do.
Bruce, you should have read my license before opening your mouth. It makes it quite clear in the definitions section that an "Author" is anyone who contributes code to the project. Under the stewardship section it then specifies that each author has just a single vote, regardless of contribution. So even if Linux were licensed under the NCL, Linus would have no special rights under it.
> It makes collaborative development >unwieldy. If every developer insists on their own >revenue
> capture, you would soon have a >too-expensive product or a paperwork and >procedural mess. Who
> decides how much each developer >gets?
Again, as a leader in the free software community you have the responsibility to actually *read the entire license*, rather than just rely on the quickly written preamble. All of these decissions rest in the hands of the steward of the work who is elected by the the authors, each with one vote.
>So, to sum it up, I think that direct revenue >capture works to the detriment of collaboration.
I understand your fears about collaboration and free reuse of code, that is the sole reason I included the stewardship system in the license. Without a guarantee of these freedoms the license couldn't be called free. I believe that this license will protect these freedoms, although only experience will tell.
I didn't write the license out of some kind of selfish grab for money at the expense of the freedoms of others. I wrote it because:
1) The free software community is bigger than the FSF, yet they are the only beneficiaries of any donations from people like Cheapbytes. The distribution of reward should be more even throughout the community.
2) There are a great many programmes that just do not lend themselves to offering consultancy services. How do you offer consulting for a game, or a genealogical programme? Home users will never purchase consulting services, so the only way to make money in this environment is to sell the software. My intention in this respect is to provide some motivation for programmers to write these sort of programmes professionally.
As I said, only experience will show if the license works properly, but I believe that it is atleast worth a try. The GNU GPL itself was a radical idea at the time, so I don't see how a supporter of it can then turn around and refuse to even support a trial of a license that contains a new idea.
Matthew Parry
Bowerbird Computing.