IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Open source software licenses
Guest_Spectrum_*
post Jun 18 2004, 02:27 PM
Post #1





Guests






I've been trying to understand the different types of licenses available for open source software. I'm leaning towards the Open Software License for my own work as it does not restrict the use of the software in any way, and it requires that derived works must make the source available (if the derived software is publicly distributed).

I'd appreciate any comments on the above license.

Spectrum
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_The Solutor_*
post Jun 19 2004, 04:52 PM
Post #2





Guests






Depends on what do you mean when you say not restrict the use of the software in any way.

Choosing the GPL license, your software can be, freely avaliable for all, can be further developed, can be integrated in other sw.

BUT

your name must be present, the surces must be avaliable, and the sw the sw thath integrates your code must be under GPL license too.

(e.g. Twinhan can't produce drivers based un your code and sell them in binary only form)

IMHO is the best way, but there are many some less and more restrictive license, an there are many different opinion too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
null_pointer
post Jun 19 2004, 05:12 PM
Post #3


Web Scheduler Developer


Group: Developers
Posts: 4,495
Joined: 9-July 03
From: Melb
Member No.: 9
Card: None


This is an area I really do not understand that well, I have read some of the main open source Licenses and would have to say that I understand about half of what they are saying.

After talking to a few people I settled on GPL V2 as it seemed to cover what I wanted.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

You should probably have a look at some other driver oriented projects to see what they use as driver projects are a little different to standard stand along tools, i.e. people will be creating software that uses your driver indirectly or directly thus the License may need to cover this.

I know with some Licenses they restrict creating software that even indirectly uses your code without the developer releasing their source, this would mean that every app that uses you driver would have to be open source to comply with your the License, not very practical and not very enforcable as you driver is a standard BDA driver and any standar BDA app can use it.

Sorry if this is not much help :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_The Solutor_*
post Jun 19 2004, 05:41 PM
Post #4





Guests






QUOTE
This is an area I really do not understand that well, I have read some of the main open source Licenses and would have to say that I understand about half of what they are saying.


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

I think 99% of people have the same point of view.

BTW have a look here:

http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/license.html

this is a similar progect, (excellent OpenSource. driver V.S. crappy proprietary ones)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_JoeyBloggs_*
post Jun 19 2004, 06:01 PM
Post #5





Guests






To some extent it's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. None of these licences have been tested in court afaik :wink:

Is there some reason you favour this particular licence over GPL or LGPL ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Spectrum_*
post Jun 20 2004, 09:59 AM
Post #6





Guests






Mostly because the GPL and LGPL talk about the use of the software and linking with a library. It all sounds a bit vague and my intention is not to limit anyone's use of the drivers - I only want changes by other groups that are released to the public to also include the source code.

Eg. if someone else uses this as the basis of a driver for their hardware and release it to the public then they should also release their source code. Does this make sense?

I don't find the GPL and LGPL to be clear on people using the drivers with other software. A driver is a library and it will link and be linked to other code, but I still don't know if the LGPL makes it easy for people to do so.

Spectrum
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nate
post Jun 20 2004, 10:09 AM
Post #7


DigitalWatch Developer
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2,267
Joined: 30-September 03
From: Melbourne
Member No.: 169
Card: DNTV Quad


QUOTE
A driver is a library and it will link and be linked to other code, but I still don't know if the LGPL makes it easy for people to do so.
That depends on your definition of linking. A driver is a library, but it doesn't get linked with other code in the sense of compile time linking, which is what the LGPL is refering to.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_rumpole_*
post Jun 21 2004, 01:58 PM
Post #8





Guests






This site has a review of some of the issues for open source licensing in Australia and some interesting alternate ideas.

http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html

Legally, the various open source licenses are pretty uncertain because they rarely get tested in court and are not backed by any legislation, in Australia anyway. However, having developed the software in such a public forum as this would at least be of assistance in asserting copyright ownership should you need to do that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sthawk
post Jun 24 2004, 10:28 PM
Post #9


Participant


Group: Members
Posts: 79
Joined: 15-April 04
From: Ryde
Member No.: 739
Card: DNTV Live Dual Hybrid PCIe S2


Spectrum, any further thoughts on publishing your work? I've been using your drivers almost continuously for a few weeks with digitalwatch and WebScheduler and I'd love to see how you are doing it once you can make sure that your work is safe from twinhan and others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2018 - 06:34 AM