Re: Relative merits of GPL, LGPL, BSD

From: Noah Roberts (nroberts_at_dontemailme.com)
Date: 04/26/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:52:50 -0700

Madhusudan Singh wrote:
> On Thursday 22 April 2004 01:36, Madhusudan Singh
> (spammers-go-here@yahoo.com) held forth in comp.os.linux.misc
> (<c67lk8$8t7n8$1@ID-159130.news.uni-berlin.de>):
>
>
> Thanks to everyone who responded.
>
> I wish to have the following conditions satisfied for the applications :
>
> 1. I hold a non-transferrable non-expiring copyright to the software.

This is always the case unless you expressly transfer your copyright.
This is not the same thing as giving out your source code or program.
>
> 2. No warranty, express or implied.

Most licenses have this.
>
> 3. No one else should modify the source code and redistribute (free or paid)
> it under the same name (though I will gladly welcome teammates who work in
> tandem with me). (Not an absolute must.).

The same name thing has also been a concern for me. I don't know if any
have this clause. Artistic might if I recall correct, but then it
wouldn't be GPL compatible so I probably recall wrongly.
>
> 4. No one can use the source code in proprietary software, but they can link
> their applications with it. (Hence my interest in LGPL, and if I understand
> BSD correctly, it rules out BSD.)

LGPL does this but does not meet 3 or 5.

>
> 5. I want an acknowledgement to appear whenever the library is used (this is
> not an absolute must - so I can accept a weaker license).

This will raise hell with many GPL advocates. It will make your source
"GPL incompatible" and much fire may ensue. Pay heed to recent news
about XFree86. Also pay heed to what happened when Apache released
their version 2.0 license that contained the patent termination clause.
  Zealots will abuse you.
>
>
> Does such an open source license exist ? Or should I write my own ?

Look at http://opensource.org/licenses/ 

-- 
"I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office
  in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Compare Linux and Freebsd Redux
    ... GPL and Linux are two completely separate things. ... The BSD license truly is free. ... the free or redistribution encumbered licenses ... the source code of your own, ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    ... you run the Linux kernel source code without creating a derived work. ... So the license that would be relevent would be a license that ... cannot compile them without agreeing to the GPL? ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: (was) GUI With Ruby =>OT FSF and GPL
    ... The GPL was crafted so ... long as they accept and execute the terms of the license. ... Here's the section which requires source code ... cost of physically performing source distribution, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: Asm For Nerds
    ... publication of full specs _and_ full BIOS source code in the ... any kind of failure. ... just an unwillingness to write code related to the GPL cause... ... I proceeded to find the BSD license, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: A fucking bunch of lying pussies
    ... you cannot have freeware sections integrated in a GPL program, ... GPL program could be construed as an attempt to abrogate the authors ... violating your license agreement, something you are not allowed to do ... > of the source code to my heart's content, as long as I give credit where credit ...
    (alt.lang.asm)